[fmntf]

> We must not use [...] Qt Creator [...] to build software using Qt LGPL-3.0 or Qt GPL. It doesn’t matter whether these tools are also available under a non-commercial Qt license.

This is the weirdest part of Qt licensing for me. An IDE is an IDE, you should not care what I develop with it. I don't even understand how is that possible, since Qt Creator is GPL3.

[jcelerier]

> I don't even understand how is that possible, since Qt Creator is GPL3.

very simply because it isn't possible and the article is just wrong. You can entirely use LGPL Qt Creator to develop proprietary apps. What you mustn't do is e.g. ship a modified version of Qt Creator as part of for instance an embedded SDK and not ship its source.

[mk89]

The part quoted is explicitly about the QT commercial license. Apparently, you can't use QT commercial with non-qt commercial (and Qt Studio non-commercial).

And probably this is done to be able to sell the IDEs, maybe based on n. of users, etc. Never bought Qt so I don't know how they license "users".

[Rochus]

They obviously want you to pay for the whole development duration and for all developers; they don't want you to use the GPL/LGPL licensed stuff during development and then to buy a commercial license ony for deployment, or to buy just one commercial license and use GPL/LGPL for the other developers.

This is btw not the only trap in the license agreement; if you sign that, you are significantly less well off than if you can do everything with LGPL.

[varajelle]

> I don't even understand how is that possible, since Qt Creator is GPL3.

Because doing so would be violating the terms of the commercial Qt license you paid for.