[Interest] License regarding question

[Konstantin Tokarev]

29.11.2016, 17:00, "Andy" <asmaloney at gmail.com>:
> Back to Alexander's question...
>
> Should he choose to contribute the fixes back, signing up for, setting up, and working with gerritt is a PIA if you aren't using it frequently.

Doing initial setup is really easy if you follow instruction.
Working with Gerrit does not require anything but basic git commands like "commit" and "push".

>
> So I would suggest reporting the bug at https://bugreports.qt.io and attaching the fixes - then at least it exists somewhere and can be found/looked at/integrated by someone in the future.

Such patch cannot be included into Qt.

>
> Thanks Alexander!
>
> ---
> Andy Maloney  //  https://asmaloney.com
> twitter ~ @asmaloney
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Konstantin Tokarev <annulen at yandex.ru> wrote:
>> 29.11.2016, 14:57, "André Somers" <andre at familiesomers.nl>:
>>> Op 29/11/2016 om 12:01 schreef Konstantin Tokarev:
>>>>  29.11.2016, 13:51, "André Somers" <andre at familiesomers.nl>:
>>>>>  Op 29/11/2016 om 11:42 schreef Alexander Dyagilev:
>>>>>>    Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    We use Qt under LGPL license.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    We have found some problem in it (bug working with HTTPS on limited
>>>>>>    connection speed) and fixed it. We have recompiled Qt then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    What do we must to do next to obey the license terms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Publish the changes somewhere?
>>>>>  We ended up shipping the actual patches we made in the installer,
>>>>>  putting them in a separate directory together and referencing them from
>>>>>  the licences section in our about box. We kept around the Qt sources for
>>>>>  the Qt we shipped with the product in the office in case anyone would
>>>>>  ever ask for them (nobody ever did, of course).
>>>>  Looks like a violation of LGPL. Section 6 requires you to provide
>>>>  _complete_ source code or written offer to do so.
>>>
>>> We did offer, in the license text in the about screen.
>>
>> Ah, than it's probably OK
>>
>>> We didn't ship
>>> the complete Qt sources with the product though, but we kept them them
>>> around in case anyone would ever ask. Same for some other libs we used
>>> and patched by the way. In my non-lawyer opinion, that is not an LGPL
>>> violation.
>>>
>>> André
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Konstantin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Interest mailing list
>> Interest at qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest


-- 
Regards,
Konstantin