incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly
Date Mon, 07 Sep 2015 08:13:10 GMT
Am 07.09.2015 03:11, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> I can speak to the specific case.
>
> The desire is to adopt Qt as the best-choice, most-cross-platform GUI
> framework for Corinthia on the desktop.  The non-commercial,
> open-source license for Qt is LGPL/GPL.  See
> <http://www.qt.io/download-open-source/>.
>
> As I understand it, a second-thought alternative to full-up
> dependence on Qt is to make an experimental implementation that
> employs a wrapper API under which a Qt-specific integration layer is
> introduced.  The Qt integration layer is meant to be optionally
> replaceable by an alternative one and corresponding framework under
> the wrapper API.  The wrapper API and integration layer for any
> functionally-equivalent integration/replacement is TBD.  A cautionary
> concern was raised about the prudence of having an
> optional-replacement of an LGPL dependence rather than an
> optionally-employable LGPL dependence.
>
> No specific proposal or request for any sort of exception is at
> legal-discuss or the LEGAL JIRA.

I am not sure that approach is realistic. I mean, if you say it must be 
optional and not required, then there must be an existing alternative. 
And that alternative must be not LGPL. If there is such a toolkit, then 
why not go with that right away? The project has to manage its resources 
well.

Also I am not fully understanding the problem I guess. It can't be 
source problem, as long as the LGPL source is not included. compiling 
against an public available LGPL source for dynamic linking itself can 
also not be the problem. I do see a problem in the distribution of the 
dynamic linked library. But if you do not distribute it and expect the 
system to have it, then it should be no deal breaker. I mean otherwise 
you could not compile against glibc or example.

And thinking this further... assuming QT is optional somehow. Why is it 
then suddenly ok to distribute it in the convenience binary? Imho it is 
not, even then.

Legal makes a difference for language/platform lgpl code. But why I 
don't understand. A ticket for LEGAL in that matter would be good, but I 
think that should be done by a member of the corinthia project. As I 
know legal, it will depend on the special case and there won't be a 
general answer.

bye blackdrag

-- 
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message