avatarvasup.blogg.se - Building static 5 qt for mac

#Building static 5 qt for mac upgrade#
#Building static 5 qt for mac software#
#Building static 5 qt for mac code#

I want to protect my source code in some way to make it difficult for hackers.

If only the WebEngine was able to statically link, this question would be a no-brainer. If I am reduced to dynamically linking I prefer to use the open source (free) version.

I don't mind buying a commercial license but I feel a little heartbroken because I can't use any of the features of a commercial license to protect my code.

I don't mind providing a link to Qt or showing the logo.

I don't want to provide source code to my actual program, but it can be easily hacked anyway if I use dynamic linking anyway.

If I did I would submit changes and provide source code for the changes, with no problem.

I don't plan to make any changes to QT Framework.

So I am back to Dynamic linking again as the only option? What License Can I use with these options? In this scenario, I could make all the changes I wanted to the QT framework without having to share anything.Īfter I bought a license for the commercial version I discovered that I can't use static linking because one of the main components use WebEngine and it does not support static linking after Qt version 4.7. exe, I know this is not hack proof, but it makes my application a lot harder to hack and that's the goal. With a commercial license, we could statically link against the framework and have everything in the. To combat this, I thought this would mean I needed a commercial license.

Scenario #2 - Commercial License - Static Linking If I have to opensource my program it's not worth even start building with Qt since I can't protect it. There is so much discussion on this matter I am not sure if I have to open source my product or just provide links to QT Framework and cite my program is built on Qt. Also if I made any changes to the Qt Framework I would need to make those changes open source.

#Building static 5 qt for mac software#

This makes the software hackable because they can change the QT Framework to include hacks that revel almost anything and to include changing the function of the main developed program. I think I can develop the closed source application as long as I dynamically link against the framework, meaning that the customer can change the framework of QT if they choose. Scenario #1 - Open Source - Dynamic Linking Or worse competitors figuring out what took me years to develop. My application is closed sourced, meaning that we don't share the source code of the product because this would lead to hacking and people stealing the service.

#Building static 5 qt for mac upgrade#

This application is given away for free, but it has a service that the user can upgrade to gain more features but it's not mandatory. I currently have a C# application that I want to convert over to Qt/C++ 5.10.0 but I am having an issue with QT licensing.