[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/5] qt: define license
arnout at mind.be
Wed Feb 6 20:04:03 UTC 2013
On 06/02/13 17:58, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Luca Ceresoli,
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:24:11 +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>> +QT_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1 with exceptions or GPLv3 or commercial
>> +QT_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.LGPL LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt LICENSE.GPL3
> If Qt5, I've done:
> +ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_QT5BASE_LICENSE_APPROVED),y)
> +QT5BASE_CONFIGURE_OPTS += -opensource -confirm-license
> +QT5BASE_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1 or GPLv3.0
Isn't it GPLv3 rather than GPLv3.0?
> +QT5BASE_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.GPL LICENSE.LGPL LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt
> +QT5BASE_LICENSE = Commercial license
> +QT5BASE_REDISTRIBUTE = NO
Hm. If LICENSE_APPROVED is not set, it means that the compilation will
stop to ask the user which license s/he wants. That doesn't necessarily
imply the commercial license. So I prefer an OR construct here as well.
And anyway, even if you hold a commercial license you're still free to
distribute it under one of the other licenses.
By the way, I'd also call it "Digia Qt Commercial license" to make it
more explicit. But that's just an opinion.
> Best regards,
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
More information about the buildroot