[Buildroot] [PATCH 3/5] qt: define license
arnout at mind.be
Thu Feb 7 17:01:54 UTC 2013
On 07/02/13 09:34, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>> 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 ($(BR2_PACKAGE_QT5BASE_LICENSE_APPROVED),y)
>>> +QT5BASE_CONFIGURE_OPTS += -opensource -confirm-license
>>> +QT5BASE_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1 or GPLv3.0
>> Isn't it GPLv3 rather than GPLv3.0?
>>> +QT5BASE_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.GPL LICENSE.LGPL LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt
>>> +QT5BASE_LICENSE = Commercial license
>>> +QT5BASE_REDISTRIBUTE = NO
>> Hm. If LICENSE_APPROVED is not set, it means that the compilation will
>> stop to ask the user which license s/he wants. That doesn't necessarily
>> imply the commercial license. So I prefer an OR construct here as well.
>> And anyway, even if you hold a commercial license you're still free to
>> distribute it under one of the other licenses.
> How about the following?
> QT_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1 with exceptions or GPLv3
> ifneq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_QT5BASE_LICENSE_APPROVED),y)
> QT_LICENSE += or Digia Qt Commercial license
> QT_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSE.LGPL LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt LICENSE.GPL3
Sounds good to me.
> This way we still cannot automatically (and safely) set
> _REDISTRIBUTE = NO, unless we add an explicit "Use commercial license"
> knob in menuconfig.
I don't think that's very important.
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