>You are forced to help customers replace the Qt libraries in your product.
Depends on what you mean by 'help'. You are forced to give the opportunity for them to do the work if they need it. If you have statically linked files, it can't be done by accident.
> Do you see any possible security problems with the above?
No I don't. When I provide completely closed binaries for my customers, they can hack with the binaries and create security problems if they want to.
Software security is not improved by obfuscation. If you don't want your customers create security problems, you don't allow them to modify the software in your hardware.
Btw. I'm confused by your wording. I'm suspecting that you have some underlying assumptions you are not stating. Are you thinking that LGPL forces you to allow customers to modify the software in the hardware they are buying?
Depends on what you mean by 'help'. You are forced to give the opportunity for them to do the work if they need it. If you have statically linked files, it can't be done by accident.
> Do you see any possible security problems with the above?
No I don't. When I provide completely closed binaries for my customers, they can hack with the binaries and create security problems if they want to.
Software security is not improved by obfuscation. If you don't want your customers create security problems, you don't allow them to modify the software in your hardware.
Btw. I'm confused by your wording. I'm suspecting that you have some underlying assumptions you are not stating. Are you thinking that LGPL forces you to allow customers to modify the software in the hardware they are buying?