On quinta-feira, 28 de fevereiro de 2013 18.35.23, Sze Howe Koh wrote: > On 23 February 2013 00:16, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > On sexta-feira, 22 de fevereiro de 2013 19.26.06, Sze Howe Koh wrote: > >> Actually, I just realized that the open-source "flavour" of TBB is > >> licensed under GPLv2 (http://threadingbuildingblocks.org/Licensing). > >> Doesn't that mean that Qt TBB, if it were to become reality, can't be > >> licensed under the LGPL? > > > > It's GPLv2+exceptions: > > > > The source code of Threading Building Blocks is distributed under version > > 2 > > of the GNU General Public License, with the so-called "runtime exception," > > > > as follows (or see any header or implementation file): > > As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free > > software > > library without restriction. Specifically, if other files instantiate > > templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you > > compile > > this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this > > file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by > > the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however > > invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered > > by > > the GNU General Public License. > > > > I believe it's the same exception as the one in GNU libstdc++ > > Apparently, one legal team out there came to the conclusion that, if a > non-GPL project incorporates TBB, someone with access to the project's > source could then re-release the whole project under GPL, even if it > was proprietary [1]
"Some legal team" does not help, of course. But I did a little more digging and it looks like the exception is not like libstdc++'s. The one there is a MUCH longer text. It's also not the short text found in GNU classpath. Moreover, I've just noticed it says "you may use this file as part of a free software library". That means if you're not doing a free software library, it does not apply. > It sounds a bit far-fetched to me, but it would probably be prudent > for us to get an official response from Digia's legal team before we > go ahead, right? Yup. Bit I can also check with Intel's legal team what the intention was. They may not give a legal opinion, but the people behind TBB might be able to say what their intention was. Also note that TBB is available under a commercial license too. > So, TBB is the shiniest at the moment, as it can replace all of > QtConcurrent's functionality and more. I'm happy to set up the project > to Qt-ify TBB, if people think it's a good idea and if we get a legal > green light. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development