On Saturday 10 October 2015 15:21:19 Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 21:09:32 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > Hi Guillem! The patch really looks nice, thanks for it! > > Thanks! I've reworked it a bit, to make it nicer, Indeed, and I really appreciate the long description too. > although I'm not > sure what are the Qt conventions all around so upstream might not > entirely like it. I'll keep you informed in case upstream has something to say. > Even though the cpu check logic is now abstracted, it kind of "leaks" > through the fatal error message, and upstream might want it protected > around a Q_PROCESSOR_X86_32 conditional perhaps, or that one > abstracted as well, dunno. I can add this as a comment to the patch later. > > But we really need to > > upstream this and in order to achieve this we need you to either push it > > trough Qt's gerrit instance and accept the CLA in the process (*please* > > read below) or license the patch under a BSD-like license. > > > > CLA: the CLA is available in [cla]. **Please** note that, as stated in the > > link, you still retain copyright over your contributions. > > > > [cla] <http://www.qt.io/contributionagreement/> > > I've read the CLA, and I don't think I can agree with point §3.1 which > states: > > «… under license terms of The Qt Company’s choosing including any Open > Source Software license.» > > Which to me implies an unfair advantage towards “The Qt Company” as > they might be able to choose a non-FLOSS license, but not other people > downloading the code. > > So given this I'd rather license the code as > something like MIT or BSD-3. Which would not remove the unfairness, > as the bulk of the code is LGPL and they can relicense the entire > thing but not other people, but at least I'm not participating in it. I do respect your position, but please allow me to say that "unfair" might be too much considering they put quite a lot of resources including the infrastructure for the whole project, the CI and quite a lot of development time. But as I said, I do respect your position and thank you a lot for still trying to help :) > > BSD: in case you don't want to agree with the CLA you can still put the > > patch under a BSD-like license. In this case we are able to push the > > patch upstreams ourselves, but if corrections are needed we need to act > > as proxies between you and upstream's gerrit instance [cr], thus possibly > > adding noise to the system. > Sorry about that, but also having to register into another web site > seems like a bit of a drag. :) Believe me that *I do* agree with you in that one ;) > > Finally the patch would need a longer description of it's intended > > purpose. > > I've expanded on it a bit, let me know if it's not enough. I've also > retested it, and at least the plasmashell keeps starting and working, > like with the previous patch. Fantastic! Thank you a lot Guillem, I'll now push it upstream and see how it goes :) Regards, Lisandro. -- La ciencia sin la religión es renga, la religión sin la ciencia es ciega. Albert Einstein Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.