[Bug 2009214] Review Request: mingw-qt6-qtlocation - Qt6 for Windows - QtLocation component

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009214



--- Comment #8 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> ---
The Qt 6 Licensing page (https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html) mentions the
commercial license, LGPL version 3, and GPL version 3.  It doesn't say anything
about version 2 of either license, does not use the "any later version"
language, and does not mention a license exception.

The general Qt Licensing page (https://www.qt.io/licensing/) mentions the GPL
(without mentioning a version) and the LGPL version 3.  It does not use the
"any later version" language, nor does it mention a license exception.  It
points to the module information page (https://www.qt.io/product/features) to
determine which modules are available under which licenses.

The "License Models" pulldown on the left-hand side of the module information
page lists these choices:
- Commercial
- LGPL v3
- GPL v3
- GPL v2
- Marketplace LA
- CMake LA
However, "Qt Location" does not appear on this page.

The Qt page on open source obligations
(https://www.qt.io/licensing/open-source-lgpl-obligations) mentions exceptions
to the LGPL, but it doesn't mean exceptions in the way it is used in the RPM
spec License field.  Rather, it means parts of the Qt distribution that are
distributed under another license (BSD or GFDL) instead of LGPL.  I have seen
no reference anywhere on any Qt page to an exception to the LGPL in the RPM
sense.

Some of the modules explicitly refer to The Qt Company GPL Exception 1.0. 
Those that I have found so far (e.g., https://doc.qt.io/qbs/attributions.html)
explicitly identify the files in the module to which the exception applies.  In
the case of Qt Location, the only files explicitly marked in this way are those
under "config.tests" and "tests", which are not part of the binary RPM.  There
is no reference to a license exception anywhere in the actual library code.

The bottom line here is that I believe that all qt5 and qt6 packages in Fedora
have an incorrect License field.  I will bring this up on fedora-devel-list, so
I can be told how wrong I am in public. :-)


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009214
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux