I believe that the text only refers to code that has already been distributed under LGPL, and therefore cannot be closed-sourced by switching Qt license.
I think you have nothing to worry about: nobody know/cares where the undistributed code you wrote came from (Commercial Qt or LGPL Qt). As long as it hasn't been released under a LGPL license, nothing can happpen.
It is the Commercial licence that adds the restriction. When they sell their software under their own commercial licence, they are free to add restrictions within the limits of the law. They are allowed to stipulate that you cannot licence software under their commercial licence that was developed using the LGPL version of the software. It is difficult for them to police, certainly, but they may just be relying on most people to do the right thing (and the fact that their Commercial licence isn't too expensive anyway).
There is nothing stopping you from selling software developed with the LGPL version, and you don't have to publish your source code. The only real consequence of using the LGPL is that you cannot technically link to the QT libraries statically. That isn't common with Qt so it's not much to worry about. And of course you don't get the same support.
To release using the commercial version, you need to purchase the commercial version from Qt (which gets you a licence code). The source is the same, but you are not using the commercial 'form' of Qt unless you buy it or steal it.
If you didn't do any modifications to the Qt Sources, yes you can go ahead and sell it.
From Qt Licensing documentation, Can create proprietary applications in accordance with the LGPL v. 2.1 terms ..
Also from the Documentation,
Qt GNU LGPL v. 2.1 Version
This version is available for development of proprietary and commercial applications in accordance with the terms and conditions of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1.
Support services are available separately for purchase.
Formerly Qt was available on GPL and the Commercial License. This used to mean that a Commercial License was need to do closed source. After the Nokia acquisition Qt was also licensed under the LGPL - after this fact, the only difference between Qt Commercial and LGPL are about shipping modified versions of Qt or Qt Solutions and the support contract.
The license text is probably legally not binding. It effectively adds an extra restriction to the GPL, namely "you cannot use your GPL code later in combination with the Qt commercial license". From clause 6 of the GPL: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
发布评论
评论（6）
我认为本文仅指已经在 LGPL 下分发的代码，因此不能通过切换 Qt 许可证来闭源。
我认为您无需担心：没有人知道/关心您编写的未分发代码来自哪里（商业 Qt 或 LGPL Qt）。只要它没有在 LGPL 许可下发布，就不会发生任何事情。
I believe that the text only refers to code that has already been distributed under LGPL, and therefore cannot be closed-sourced by switching Qt license.
I think you have nothing to worry about: nobody know/cares where the undistributed code you wrote came from (Commercial Qt or LGPL Qt). As long as it hasn't been released under a LGPL license, nothing can happpen.
添加限制的是商业许可证。当他们根据自己的商业许可销售软件时，他们可以在法律允许的范围内自由添加限制。他们可以规定您不能根据其商业许可来许可使用 LGPL 版本的软件开发的软件。当然，他们很难监管，但他们可能只是依靠大多数人做正确的事情（而且他们的商业许可证无论如何也不太贵）。
没有什么可以阻止您销售使用 LGPL 版本开发的软件，并且您不必发布源代码。使用 LGPL 的唯一真正后果是您无法在技术上静态链接到 QT 库。这在 Qt 中并不常见，因此不必担心。当然，你不会得到同样的支持。
要使用商业版本发布，您需要从 Qt 购买商业版本（它会为您提供许可证代码）。来源是相同的，但您没有使用 Qt 的商业“形式”，除非您购买或窃取它。
It is the Commercial licence that adds the restriction. When they sell their software under their own commercial licence, they are free to add restrictions within the limits of the law. They are allowed to stipulate that you cannot licence software under their commercial licence that was developed using the LGPL version of the software. It is difficult for them to police, certainly, but they may just be relying on most people to do the right thing (and the fact that their Commercial licence isn't too expensive anyway).
There is nothing stopping you from selling software developed with the LGPL version, and you don't have to publish your source code. The only real consequence of using the LGPL is that you cannot technically link to the QT libraries statically. That isn't common with Qt so it's not much to worry about. And of course you don't get the same support.
To release using the commercial version, you need to purchase the commercial version from Qt (which gets you a licence code). The source is the same, but you are not using the commercial 'form' of Qt unless you buy it or steal it.
如果您没有对 Qt 源代码进行任何修改，那么您可以继续出售它。
从Qt Licensing文档中，可以按照LGPL v. 2.1 条款 ..
也来自文档，
此该版本可用于根据 GNU 宽通用公共许可证版本 2.1 的条款和条件开发专有和商业应用程序。
支持服务可单独购买。
If you didn't do any modifications to the Qt Sources, yes you can go ahead and sell it.
From Qt Licensing documentation, Can create proprietary applications in accordance with the LGPL v. 2.1 terms ..
Also from the Documentation,
This version is available for development of proprietary and commercial applications in accordance with the terms and conditions of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1.
Support services are available separately for purchase.
以前，Qt 可通过 GPL 和商业许可证获得。这曾经意味着需要商业许可证才能进行闭源。在诺基亚收购 Qt 后，Qt 也获得了 LGPL 的许可 - 在此之后，Qt Commercial 和 LGPL 之间的唯一区别在于发布 Qt 或 Qt Solutions 的修改版本以及支持合同。
Formerly Qt was available on GPL and the Commercial License. This used to mean that a Commercial License was need to do closed source. After the Nokia acquisition Qt was also licensed under the LGPL - after this fact, the only difference between Qt Commercial and LGPL are about shipping modified versions of Qt or Qt Solutions and the support contract.
许可文本可能不具有法律约束力。它实际上给 GPL 添加了一个额外的限制，即“您以后不能将您的 GPL 代码与 Qt 商业许可证结合使用”。 GPL 第 6 条规定：“您不得对接收者行使此处授予的权利施加任何进一步的限制。”
The license text is probably legally not binding. It effectively adds an extra restriction to the GPL, namely "you cannot use your GPL code later in combination with the Qt commercial license". From clause 6 of the GPL: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
由于您可以使用 Qt LGPL 版本销售您的软件（它不再只是 GPL），因此这一点对于大多数用户来说应该没有意义。
As you can sell your software using the Qt LGPL version (it's not only GPL anymore), this point should be moot for most users.