On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 14:11 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 08/18/2014 08:52 AM, Tobias Frost wrote: > > Hi Sebastiaan, > > > > 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 > > here; > > 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". > > > > Looking at > > http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtwidgets-richtext-textedit-textedit-cpp.html > > (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 > > artifact) > > The license header in the artifact doesn't state the "or later", but > refers to the license as published by the FSF which does include it: > > > ** GNU Lesser General Public License Usage > ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser > ** General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software > ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the > ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to > ** ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements > ** will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. > ** > ** In addition, as a special exception, Digia gives you certain additional > ** rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception > ** version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. > ** > ** GNU General Public License Usage > ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU > ** General Public License version 3.0 as published by the Free Software > ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the > ** packaging of this file. Please review the following information to > ** ensure the GNU General Public License version 3.0 requirements will be > ** met: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. > > > The full license text is not included in the header, but is deferred to > the license as published by the FSF. Since the licenses as published by > the FSF include "or (at your option) any later version" GPL-3+ applies. > > QT projects include the LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files as referred > to in the header, but these are not included in qmapshack as they are in > QT projects. The LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL files included in QT > projects are verbatim copies of the licenses as published by the FSF > which includes "or (at your option) any later version". > > The QT code included in qmapshack is taken from the QT examples, and the > license applied to that include "or (at your option) any later version": > > https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/demos-textedit-textedit-cpp.html > https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/licensing.html > https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/gpl.html > https://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/lgpl.html The artefact fails to state the option explictly. As Ansgar already replied, this is necessary to apply the "or later" option. > >>> 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. > > Leaving out the commercial licensing option is not ideal indeed. I > suggest to include the license header in the d/copyright as a comment > and keep the individual license specifications as they are now: > > Files: src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.cpp > src/helpers/CTextEditWidget.h > Copyright: 2012, Digia Plc and/or its subsidiary(-ies) > License: GPL-3.0+ or LGPL-2.1 with Digia Qt LGPL Exception 1.1 > Comment: > Commercial License Usage > Licensees holding valid commercial Qt licenses may use this file in > accordance with the commercial license agreement provided with the > Software or, alternatively, in accordance with the terms contained in > a written agreement between you and Digia. For licensing terms and > conditions see http://qt.digia.com/licensing. For further information > use the contact form at http://qt.digia.com/contact-us. > . > GNU Lesser General Public License Usage > Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser > General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software > Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the > packaging of this file. Please review the following information to > ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements > will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. > . > In addition, as a special exception, Digia gives you certain additional > rights. These rights are described in the Digia Qt LGPL Exception > version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. > . > GNU General Public License Usage > Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU > General Public License version 3.0 as published by the Free Software > Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the > packaging of this file. Please review the following information to > ensure the GNU General Public License version 3.0 requirements will be > met: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. I'm (slightly) different opinion (I'll write Jaromír my recommendation in a seperate mail, to bring back the topic closer to the sponsoring request) > >> 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 > > d/copyright. > > From these two pulseview is the best example, although it also doesn't > use a license specific short name (and one that doesn't contain spaces), > which would be more appropriate for this collection of license options. > > License: QT > This file is part of the QtGui module of the Qt Toolkit. > ... > Would conform to the copyright-format 1.0 specification. > > If my suggestion above is not deemed appropriate, I suggest to to use > the license short name QT whose license specification is the text from > the header. For non-standard licenses the short name needs only to be unique in the individual license file. So almost everything is appropiate, if it somehow is self-explaining. I would avoid QT to avoid confusion with the QPL. > > But IMHO other packagaes are a hint, not necessarily always correct. > > (This could be also a question for d-legal.) > > > > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/q/qt4-x11/unstable_copyright > > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/p/pulseview/unstable_copyright > > > Exactly. I looked at how other packages had handled the QT specific > license in d/copyright. qt4-x11, which I looked at too, is not > appropriate as it doesn't use copyright-format 1.0. > > qtmultimedia-opensource-src does use copyright-format 1.0 and includes > the text from the LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt text in the license specification > which was missing in d/copyright for qmapshack. > > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/q/qtmultimedia-opensource-src/unstable_copyright > > If we take the example of pulseview, we'd still miss the text from > LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt which is not included in qmapshack, but is included > in QT projects. > > Kind Regards, > > Bas > -- tobi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part