On 2/28/13 5:01 PM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
>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. The exception above unfortunately doesn't look good enough to me to incorporate the whole thing into Qt, at least not as part of qtbase. I think an add-on based on TBB might be possible. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
