Re: Bug#757243: RFS: qmapshack/0.2.0+ds1-1
On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 23:57 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 08/17/2014 10:55 PM, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > Regarding the patch: I'm not near a PC right now, so can't check: Are you sure the license of those files with the exception had a "or later" on their GPL option?
> I'm pretty sure about that. The QT project licensing page links to the
> licenses as published by the FSF which contain the "or later" part.
> Furthermore the LICENSE.LGPL and LICENSE.GPL files contained in QT
> projects contain "or (at your option) any later version".
No I disagee. You cannot refer to the published complete license text
LICENSE.GPL begins with
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
so one can be sure that it is not modified for the purpose to have the
"or later" option. As there is no no-later veision of the license file,
we have to read on.
Later in the license the or-later-option is introduced:
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation."
The files in question do *NOT* have the "any later version" specified,
so the AND evaluated to false and it does not apply. That means you have
only GPL-3 as option.
As licenses are bound to the specific artifact, it is very dangerous to
say "other packages using QT do it this way".
(looks like the source of the file), and on
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/licensing.html I don't see any "or later
option" too. (However, this would be only an addtional, non-authoritive
datapoint anyway, as the only thing that counts is the text in the
> > Regarding the commercial option: I wouldn't leave it out, as IMHO d/copyright should be a exact representation on the license, even if a option is not really applicable.
> I agree in general, but we're not able to document the text of the
> commercial license.
Thats not the point. The message is "There is a third license option
available which are individually negotiated. See the URL for details or
contact us" Details on the license are not necessary and the don't
impact the use under the other license options.
> The other QT software I looked at also don't specify
> the commercial license, have you found any that do and if so how do
> they handle this issue?
At least qat4-x11 and pulseview. They just have the license header in
But IMHO other packagaes are a hint, not necessarily always correct.
(This could be also a question for d-legal.)
> Kind Regards,