corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Is Qt the right choice ??
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:49:00 GMT
Jan is correct, although "optional" needs to be clarified.

Supplementing Jan's observation:

In addition to <> the Qt project provides an
useful FAQ on what is involved at <>.  See the section "Developing
with the LGPL," subsection "What are my obligations when using Qt under the LGPL."  Note that
the download page, <>, assumes that an open-source application
of Qt will itself be under LGPL or GPL. 

Making the editor "optional" doesn't help.  It is the editor dependency on Qt that would have
to be optional, with no Qt source code (including headers) provided in the editor release
and in the Corinthia code base.  Building with the Qt "option" would involve additional license
notifications and other provisions concerning substitutability of the Qt libraries that would
be installed with such a version.  

I assume that going to the trouble to make that work is not solving the problem for which
Qt is desired [;<).

 - Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: jan i [] 
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 03:21
Subject: Re: Is Qt the right choice ??

Hi Peter

sorry for top posting, but I try to answer both of your mails in one.

The licensing problem is a bit more complicated.

Apache source is not allowed to depend on third party libraries that uses
e.g. LGPL if you
want to read details you can find it here:
In general there are a number of loopholes:
- if the library is part of the OS we don´t care (think of Microsoft
SDK/MFC, OS-X core libraries and glibc), so webkit on OS-X is not a problem
- if the component is optional we don´t care in case of LGPL

I am not a lawyer so please don´t ask me about the legal difference, in us
asking for a library to be installed, or it being preinstalled.

We can surely use the "optional", because the editor is only one of many
consumers. To avoid discussions with the IPMC, I would prefer to rename
it "editor" that is more neutral.

[ ... ]

View raw message