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

[Gunnar Roth]

Ok i now finally also found /doc/src/legal/licenses.qdoc which is compiled into 
qtdoc.qch 

There i can find Copyright (C) 2004, 2005 Daniel M. Duley
under  
Parts of the codecs implemented by Qt ( meaning TextCodecs)
But not for his code used in image scaling.

The thing that i am picking on that all is because i am and will be picked by 
our legal department.
I am trying since March 2014 to figure things out with Digia ( now Qt Company) 
, The first of my requests were simply closed after a while with out a reason. 
Reopened it in June same thing happened then.
The 3rd i started on monday  and in paralleli wrote to this mailing list 
and out of a sudden things are getting momentum. So hopefully this burden
will get less and less for me. I am a strong advocate of using commercial qt 
licensing in  my department, so it was a bit disappointing for me to not get 
the support i had hoped for initially.

Thanks for reading,
Gunnar Roth.



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2015-02-28, Gunnar Roth  wrote:
>
>  UC writes  BSD Unix files not about general source code.
I don't think that UC has published anything else but BSD Unix.

> And why does gnu,org not update their website,but till insists on  
> incompatibility with the GNU GPL?

In the general case, the incompatibility still exists. The special case
where it doesn't is if the organization is University of California.

/Sune

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Gunnar Roth]

> Am 28.02.2015 um 08:10 schrieb Sune Vuorela :
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Everybody is right. 4-clause-BSD is incompatible with BSD, but as you
> write yourself, the university of california has removed the obnoxious
> clause from all their software, so it is just 3-clause licensed, even if
> you have a old copy of it.
> 
 UC writes  BSD Unix files not about general source code.
And why does gnu,org not update their website,but till insists on  
incompatibility with the GNU GPL?

Regards,
Gunnar


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Sune Vuorela]

> 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.

Everybody is right. 4-clause-BSD is incompatible with BSD, but as you
write yourself, the university of california has removed the obnoxious
clause from all their software, so it is just 3-clause licensed, even if
you have a old copy of it.

/Sune
 - who also not is a lawyer.

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Thiago Macieira]

On Friday 27 February 2015 20:29:36 Gunnar Roth wrote:
> >> No need to mention
> >> in documentation, end-user license, to provide source code etc. that LGPL
> >> requires
> > 
> > Because it's not LGPL requirement.
> >
> > 
> 
> What is NOT lpgl requirement?

"No need to mention in documentation, end-user licence, to provide source code 
that the LGPL requires".

You're not bound by the LGPL if you use the Enterprise version of Qt. Its 
requirements won't apply to you, especially the requirement to provide the 
source code to Qt.

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

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [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@qt-project.org 
>  
> käyttäjän  puolestaGunnar Roth 
> Lähetetty: 27. helmikuuta 2015 20:40
> Vastaanottaja: Thiago Macieira
> Kopio: development@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 th

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

[Gunnar Roth]

Hi Thiago

> 
>> 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.
> 
> There's a page in the Qt documentation that lists all the documentation 
> requirements.

Yes that is the page . http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/3rdparty.html 
  i mentioned and as i wrote this page 
does not contain
the Copyright (C) 2004, 2005 Daniel M. Duley 
so how should a customer know he needs to mention it?


> 
>> The Digia legal counsel Topi Ruotsalainen tells in
>> https://devdays.kdab.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/Qt_license_options_FINAL_2
>> 0121114.pdf page 14
>> 
>> Qt Commercial can be used „silently‟ to create products ● t is No need to 
>> mention
>> in documentation, end-user license, to provide source code etc. that LGPL
>> requires

> Because it's not LGPL requirement.
> 

What is NOT lpgl requirement?

> You still have to observe the BSD 2- and 3-clause requirement to reproduce 
> the 
> copyright notice.
> 

Well i read it like this: 
Qt Commercial can be used „silently‟ to create products. No need to mention 
documentation.
So how is that silent if i need to add a lot of copyright notices which i also 
have to find myself by scanning the qtbase source code?


Regards,
Gunnar



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Turunen Tuukka]

Hi Gunnar,

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.

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. 

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

Yours,

Tuukka


Lähettäjä: development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=theqtcompany@qt-project.org 
 käyttäjän  
puolestaGunnar Roth 
Lähetetty: 27. helmikuuta 2015 20:40
Vastaanottaja: Thiago Macieira
Kopio: development@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 :
>
> 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@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Thiago Macieira]

On Friday 27 February 2015 19:40:51 Gunnar Roth wrote:
> Hi Thiago,
> should i just take your word or do you also have a link for this?

https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-4-Clause-UC
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change

> 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.

There's a page in the Qt documentation that lists all the documentation 
requirements.

> The Digia legal counsel Topi Ruotsalainen tells in
> https://devdays.kdab.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/Qt_license_options_FINAL_2
> 0121114.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

Because it's not LGPL requirement.

You still have to observe the BSD 2- and 3-clause requirement to reproduce the 
copyright notice.

> 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   )

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

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Gunnar Roth]

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 :
> 
> 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@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Thiago Macieira]

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@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Knoll Lars]

It’s an old left over from Qt 1 days. Let’s get rid of it.

https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/107400/

Cheers,
Lars

From: Gunnar Roth mailto:gunnar.r...@gmx.de>>
Date: Friday 27 February 2015 08:40
To: "development@qt-project.org<mailto:development@qt-project.org>" 
mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
Subject: [Development] license question, bds 4 clause license text in 
qtbase\src\corelib\tools\qdatetime.cpp qt5.4.1 found

Hi all,
i have a question according license compatibilty.
In qtbase\src\corelib\tools\qdatetime.cpp above line 601 in qt5.4.1 i found 
this:
  \legalese
Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
advertising materials, and other materials related to such
distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
by the University of California, Berkeley.  The name of the
University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
\sa isValid()
*/
int QDate::weekNumber(int *yearNumber) const
{


advertising materials, and other materials related to such
distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
by the University of California, Berkeley.
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?

Regards,
Gunnar Roth

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

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

[Gunnar Roth]

Hi all,

i have a question according license compatibilty.

In qtbase\src\corelib\tools\qdatetime.cpp above line 601 in qt5.4.1 i found this:


  \legalese
    Copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California.
    All rights reserved.

    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
    provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
    duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
    advertising materials, and other materials related to such
    distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
    by the University of California, Berkeley.  The name of the
    University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
    from this software without specific prior written permission.
    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
    IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
    WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

    \sa isValid()
*/

int QDate::weekNumber(int *yearNumber) const
{

 

 

advertising materials, and other materials related to such
    distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
    by the University of California, Berkeley. 

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?

 

Regards,

Gunnar Roth

 

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development