[Development] Qt LTS & C++11 plans (CopperSpice)

[Thiago Macieira]

On Tuesday 21 July 2015 12:21:35 Ansel Sermersheim wrote:
> Hi Gunnar,
> 
> We used to say "Qt" which we thought was the name of the project. We
> were asked to use the name "The Qt Project".  We do not mind changing
> how we address the company and the library. Since we meant to harm may
> we suggest this be conveyed to others a little more gently.

The point is that there's a difference between:

	Qt				the product, the framework, the libraries
	Qt Project			the open source project organised to develop Qt
	The Qt Company	the company that holds the rights under the CLA and 
					the trademark to Qt

And, for that matter,
	Qt Creator			the IDE
(lots of people come on IRC and say something about Qt, when they meant Qt 
Creator)

> I am not a lawyer but this language is very clear. It may not be The Qt
> Company policy or practice to accept changes into the commercial version
> only, but if I were to sign the CLA I would be granting them the right,
> irrevocably and perpetually. Since these rights are transferable I have
> no recourse if the license is transferred to another entity who uses my
> contribution in a way I did not intend.

That's actually common practice. The commercial version is identical to the 
open source version in functionality and codebase. The reverse is required by 
the KDE Free Qt Foundation: everything released commercially must be present 
in the open source version (at least, as long as it's Android or X11, but in 
practice it is the case for all platforms).

It makes no sense to keep two separate trees. Even when Trolltech had pieces 
of functionality that weren't present in the open source version, Trolltech 
kept a single tree. The release scripts simply removed some files before the 
release.

That hasn't been the case since March 2009. When the Git repositories opened.

> Most open source development communities are structured in such a way
> that all participants have equal rights. The Qt Company is in a position
> to exercise additional rights not enjoyed by the rest of the Qt
> community. This is certainly a legal and enforceable position. However,
> it bothers many members of the larger open source community including
> myself.

Understandable. For us, it's a trade-off: the community accepts giving The Qt 
Company some extra rights in exchange for them employing a large chunk of the 
work force, including the entirety of the QA team and running the entire CI 
system and infrastructure for us.

> We have talked with other developers and read discussions about this for
> over a decade. Many members of the larger open source community,
> including myself, are not comfortable with this clause.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center