[Development] license question, bds 4 clause license text in qtbase\src\corelib\tools\qdatetime.cpp qt5.4.1 found

[Gunnar Roth]

Hi Thiago,
should i just take your word or do you also have a link for this?

the requirement to document this  is also more than qt company tells commercial customers. they they if you use modules which are under commrcial license
as qtcore pretends to be, you can be silent about anything used in there.

and while i am at it, there is also
	•     \legalese
	•      Copyright (C) 2004, 2005 Daniel M. Duley
	•  
	•      Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
	•         modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
	•         are met:
	•  
	•      1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
	•         notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
	•      2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
	•         notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
	•         documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
in qtbase/src/gui/image/qimage.cpp, which i found accidentally today, so also for this a commercial customer(and even a lpgl or gal user) has to reproduce 
copyright (C) 2004, 2005 Daniel M. Duley
 in his documentation.
I am quite sure nobody does this. http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/3rdparty.html is also not mentioning this.

The Digia legal counsel Topi Ruotsalainen tells in https://devdays.kdab.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/Qt_license_options_FINAL_20121114.pdf page	14

Qt Commercial can be used „silently‟ to create products ● No need to mention in documentation, end-user license, to provide source code etc. that LGPL requires


Well that then seems to not be true…

Regards,
Gunnar

Ps.: And then there is also the modified freetype code in qtgui’s raster code which also has the freetype license and one need to mention freetype in your documentation, even if you don’t use the 3rdparte ferrotype lib provided by qt ( on windows you don’t need this for example	) 


> Am 27.02.2015 um 18:29 schrieb Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>:
> 
> On Friday 27 February 2015 08:40:21 Gunnar Roth wrote:
>> is the so called adevrtising clause which is know to not be kompatible with
>> GPL or LPGL, so how can it be that i find this kind of license in qt source
>> code? What are the obligations to follow when using commercial license?
> 
> The University of California has revoked the clause that causes 
> incompatibility in all code that it owns the copyright for. Therefore, 4-
> clause BSD by UC == 3-clause BSD.
> 
> There's no incompatibility, but the requirement to document remains.
> 
> -- 
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development