corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Is Qt the right choice ??
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:10:11 GMT
On 27 July 2015 at 17:49, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
wrote:

> Jan is correct, although "optional" needs to be clarified.
>
> Supplementing Jan's observation:
>
> In addition to <http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html> the Qt project
> provides an useful FAQ on what is involved at <http://www.qt.io/faq/>.
> See the section "Developing with the LGPL," subsection "What are my
> obligations when using Qt under the LGPL."  Note that the download page, <
> http://www.qt.io/download/>, assumes that an open-source application of
> Qt will itself be under LGPL or GPL.
>
yes but I read it is not a demand.


>
> 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 do not quite follow you here. By making the editor optional, we exclude
that code part if you the "pure" apache product.

Don´t forget our main delivery is the docformat library, the consumers are
just nice addons.

I totally agree that we cannot include a single bit of Qt code in our
source release, but it is legal to reference e.g. include files in the
optional source code.

If you look at e.g. AOO (which you know), you find exact the same behaviour
(the --enable-category-b switch), the source code referencing the libraries
are
part of the source release, but not any third party header files or
libraries.


>
> I assume that going to the trouble to make that work is not solving the
> problem for which Qt is desired [;<).
>
Should it finally turn out to be a real problem (I dont think so, but you
might be right), then we simply remove the editor from the apache source
repo,
and put it on github, as a derived product.

rgds
jan i.

>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 03:21
> To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
> 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:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> disc
> 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.
>
> [ ... ]
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message