[Development] Qt modules missing mandatory LICENSE files

Jason McDonald macadder1 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 12:36:16 CET 2013


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Timo Jyrinki <timo.jyrinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/2/8 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>:
>>> I'd like to raise awareness that all modules and tarballs should be
>>> shipping the LICENSE files required by the (L)GPL licenses. Currently
>>> only qtbase is including the files. This is a license terms blocker
>>> for distributing the modules.
> ...
>> I think it's ok. Let's just do it.

Agreed. This was just an oversight of the modularization process.

It shouldn't be very hard to make an autotest to check for the
existence of these files ine ach module, and to verify that the text
is in sync with the copies in qtbase.  I'll add that my list of "rainy
day tasks".

> Thanks. I did so for the core modules except qtwebkit which doesn't
> need anything more besides the LGPL license text already included.
> qtjsbackend also has only minimal amount of code under these.
>
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47235 (qtscript)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47236 (qtdeclarative)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47237 (qtsvg)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47238 (qtgraphicaleffects)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47239 (qtmultimedia)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47240 (qttools)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47241 (qtquick1)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47243 (qttranslations)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47244 (qtdoc)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47245 (qtimageformats)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47246 (qtactiveqt)
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47247 (qtjsbackend)

I've +2'd those changes, except qtactiveqt, which seems to need a copy
of the LICENSE.FDL.

> The modules not part of official releases should also be updated at some point.

Do you have time to do that?  If so, feel free to add me as a reviewer.

--
Jason



More information about the Development mailing list