Qt or not at work

[jetimms]

Can I use the LGPL version of the Qt library at work? I work for a private manufacturing firm and I would like to utilize Qt's library for inhouse GUI and database tools.

I have no desire in modifying the Qt library in any way, although it may be necessary to install the tool on others' computers, once complete, and therefore "distributing" the tool (as a whole, including the necessary libraries static or dynamic) within the corporation.

As an employee here, any software that I write while at work is owned by the company, outside of any copyrighted material or licenses that I use to create the software.

In this regard, since I will not be updating the Qt source, am I barred from using Qt under the LGPL 2.1 or 3.0 licences?

Thanks.

[PanGalactic]

You should ask this on the Qt forums. http://labs.trolltech.com/forums/

[jetimms]

Good idea.

I have registered on their site, but must wait until I get home to complete registration (my email service is blocked from work.)

In the meantime, I checked their FAQ to see if they had already addressed this issue and they have (almost).


Here are some FAQ's on the subject, however, they still leave my question unanswered.
These definately say "No!":
I don't want to give away my source code. What do I do?
http://www.qtsoftware.com/developer/faqs/180?hotspoturl=http%3A//www.qtsoftware.com/developer/faqs/licensing

Why do I need to buy a commercial edition when I can get it for free?
http://www.qtsoftware.com/developer/faqs/179?hotspoturl=http%3A//www.qtsoftware.com/developer/faqs/licensing

These fall in the "Maybe" pile:
Can I redistribute the dll from my Non-commercial Qt with my application?
http://www.qtsoftware.com/developer/faqs/70?hotspoturl=http%3A//www.qtsoftware.com/developer/faqs/licensing

Why isn't Qt released under LGPL?
http://www.qtsoftware.com/developer/faqs/159?hotspoturl=http%3A//www.qtsoftware.com/developer/faqs/licensing


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm led to believe that the LGPL okays using a library inside proprietary software as long as the software doesn't recreate a derivative of the LGPL'ed library.
It calls the software "work that uses the Library", as seen below:

Section 5 of the LGPL 2.1 states:
"5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html

I'll post my findings here, once I get feedback from the Qt forums. By the way, thanks for the link and suggestion!

[helios]

The way I understand the GPL, you can use GPL'd software internally (i.e. privately) without providing source code. For example, you could take a GPL'd source, modify it and keep it for you own personal use without giving away the source code. A company is kind of legal person (or at least it is in my jurisdiction), so the same applies to a company that modifies a software for internal use. The "distribution" part refers to public distribution, which is the only moment the GPL is enforceable, anyway.

Of course, IANAL.