https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing

https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgp...

>And everytime I end up confused about it.

I think this is the point. If you're making a real application you may pay for the licensing to avoid the uncertainty/risk.

https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html

Over the years it has been noted by many that Qt’s wording and warnings about the LGPL amount to spreading FUD or outright misinformation in what seems like an attempt to scare managers and C-suite folks into buying commercial licenses “just in case”.

In every major Qt release, there's a handful of super useful but kind of niche widgets which aren't released under open source licenses, presumably as a sales tactic as buying licenses gets you these widgets and sometimes that is cheaper than building them yourself, but unless you need these, you probably don't care about this.

Although my experience attempting to buy licenses from Qt is about a decade out of date now, the way it roughly worked was you paid a per-seat-per-year fee to get a developer license or build-machine license. Then you bought bundles of deployment licenses, and the bigger the bundle then the lower the cost per license. If you are buying a bundle of a few thousand devices then you pay more per license than if you're buying a bundle of a few million. Either way, it is a significant chunk of cash you have to front to get your block of licenses and normally embedded projects are EXTREMELY sensitive to per-unit costs.

This right here! We customers and users alike are often confused by QTs piecemeal licensing model.

reflection could replace moc, (likely c++29 needed) but if compilers don't implement that part of reflection qt can't use it. If qt can get compilers updated that helps them.