[Development] Qt Commercial 4.8.0 release delta to LGPL version

[Anttila Janne]

> From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
> On Monday, 19 de December de 2011 09.40.44, David Faure wrote:
> > > What should this do for something like 4.8.0c? Better to not confuse
> > > things
> > > and to leave the version number as it was. In practice, I'd be surprised
> > > if
> > > there was much confusion caused by Digia supplying a customised 4.8.0
> > > which
> > > includes just fixes. If people are using Digia's 4.8.0 version, I suspect
> > > they are also likely to report bugs they find to Digia instead of to the
> > > general Qt bug tracker anyway.
> >
> > I disagree.
> > They will post questions to forums, to consultants, on blog posts, etc. etc.
> 
> Anyone may produce a "vendor branch" and release it, so long as they clearly
> mark it as a patched version of the official Qt.
> 
> "Qt Commercial 4.8.0" sounds to me like it's clearly marked.
> 
Hi,

Since we intend to keep QtCommerial versions backward and forward compatible the equivalent open source release, we need keep the same version numbers as open source releases. First I would like to point out that there are already many places where "Commercial" is mentioned in our releases, to list a few of them:
    - Release packages has "commercial" in filename
    - License texts starts with "Qt Commercial",  license headers in all source files are Qt Commercial specific
    - Changes, INSTALL, README files and all documentation footers speak about "Qt Commercial"
    - Most places where Qt icon is used, we use QtCommercial icon (Including installers, demo launcher, about Qt dialog, etc). The QtCommrcial icon is basically the Qt icon with added "Commercial" string 
    - Our Windows "start menu" mention "Commercial"

So I think it should be already quite clear for our customers that they are using commercial version instead of open source one. But of course there is room for improvement, and the following ideas raised here are fine for us:

1. We will add QT_COMMERCIAL definition to our releases in future
2. We will add "Commercial" texts to places where QT_VERSION_STR is shown, so that for example aboutQt, qmake -v, etc would say: "...Qt Commmercial version 4.8.0..."
3. We will not change either QT_VERSION or QT_VERSION_STR. This because there are (and can be) places where these are assumed to contain numeric only information

To ease our maintenance burden, we would like do change #2 so that we introduce a new QT_STR, QT_PRODUCT_NAME_STR (or whatever) definition, which is then used instead of hard coded "Qt" string in all relevant places. 

Would that approach be OK and enough for everybody?

-- 
Janne Anttila 
Architect, Qt Commercial R&D
Digia Plc
Sepänkatu 20, FIN - 90100 OULU
E-mail: janne.anttila at digia.com
Visit us at: www.digia.com or qt.digia.com