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

[Gunnar Roth]

Hi Tuuka

> There is no requirement to mention use of Qt if you have a commercial license. Of course you do need to mention 3rd party open-source components, to the extent you use them. Documentation contains a listing of these per module to make it easier.
> 

Okay there is  http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/3rdparty.html 
but this page does not mention Copyright (C) 2004, 2005 Daniel M. Duley
for scaling code in qimage, nor  copyright regents of california when using qtcore ( it does mention it for use of liftoff) . So if i use qimage(qt5gui.dll or qt5core.dll)  i would have to add this to my documentation.
Either commercial user or not. but show me any program using qimage which really does this.



> There is some 3rd party code that is used very little any more, and we have been continuously working to remove the ones that are non-permissive, when possible. We are very happy to accept your help in pointing these out, or for re-implementing the functionality to remove the 3rd party dependency.

Thats a good thing to do. as there is 3party code used n code which i have shown which is not directly recognizable as third party code.

> It should be noted that we disagree with your claim that having items with original BSD clause would prevent releasing Qt under GPL.
> 

Well https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html says
Original BSD license (#OriginalBSD)
This license is also sometimes called the “4-clause BSD license”.

This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software nonfree. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
 
but ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change says
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials.  Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted
in its entirety.

But does the week number code fall under the category  BSD Unix files ?

So who is right her? GNU.org, Thiago ?  I am not a lawyer( thank god :-) ) or judge to decide this.


Regards,
Gunnar Roth

> Yours,
> 
>                    Tuukka
> 
> ________________________________________
> Lähettäjä: development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=theqtcompany.com at qt-project.org <development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=theqtcompany.com at qt-project.org> käyttäjän  puolestaGunnar Roth <gunnar.roth at gmx.de>
> Lähetetty: 27. helmikuuta 2015 20:40
> Vastaanottaja: Thiago Macieira
> Kopio: development at qt-project.org
> Aihe: Re: [Development] license question,       bds 4 clause license text in qtbase\src\corelib\tools\qdatetime.cpp     qt5.4.1 found
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development