Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:18:22 -03 Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
> Maybe a combination is possible, where the project files look in a common
> location.  If licheck isn't found, attempt to grab the file via https and
> put it there?  Or print the necessary `git clone` message to grab licheck
> and put it in the right spot, then error out?  Anything that avoids manual
> steps that are only found in the online documentation.

Printing the instructions if licheck isn't found is preferable. Hitting the 
network during automated builds is really bad practice.

-- 
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] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[André Pönitz]

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:58:43PM +, Kai Koehne wrote:
> > -Original Message- [...] Can .pro files test for commercial
> > vs. oss licenses?  If so, and you create a non- Qt project repo,
> > couldn't some .pro in qtbase retrieve licheck, like QtCreator does
> > here: http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt-creator/qt-
> > creator.git/tree/qtcreator.pro#n123?
> > 
> > Is that an acceptable solution?  Seems like it would work here,
> > although I think the time stamp generation and commercial licenses
> > would need to be added to qtbase (I think).
> 
> Thanks, that's actually an interesting idea. Obvious downside is that
> you need network access ... but you can argue that, if people are using
> git, they most likely have it 

I am not sure I got the context right here, but as a general remark:
"being in principle able to access network on demand, with permission,
possibly restricted to certain times or other circumstances" does not
mean that I would necessarily appreciate the attempt to access network
at arbitrary times, in automated ways, possibly without my active
knowledge and permission.

So I'd prefer a git checkout to be usable offline, completely, without
usable network access or even probing.

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

Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 24 May 2018 09:58:43 -03 Kai Koehne wrote:
> Thanks, that's actually an interesting idea. Obvious downside is that you
> need network access ... but you can argue that, if people are using git,
> they most likely have it 

Uh... not really. I use git while on the plane :-)

-- 
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] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Kai Koehne]

> -Original Message-
> [...]
> Can .pro files test for commercial vs. oss licenses?  If so, and you create a 
> non-
> Qt project repo, couldn't some .pro in qtbase retrieve licheck, like QtCreator
> does here: http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt-creator/qt-
> creator.git/tree/qtcreator.pro#n123?
> 
> Is that an acceptable solution?  Seems like it would work here, although I 
> think
> the time stamp generation and commercial licenses would need to be added to
> qtbase (I think).

Thanks, that's actually an interesting idea. Obvious downside is that you need 
network access ... but you can argue that, if people are using git, they most 
likely have it 

Alright, seems I need to get back to the drawing board and experiment a bit. 
The suggestions for getting the licheck executables distributes so far are

- host the licheck executables outside of a qt-project.org repository, and let 
users clone it from there
- let them be downloaded by the online installer
- fetch them via qmake 

I'll look into each one of them. Meanwhile, consider the request for the 
repository withdrawn for now.

Thanks

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

Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Kai Koehne]

> -Original Message-
> [ ..]
> Would it perhaps be possible for configure to just look in "well known"
> locations in the system where the online installer can place them (or place a 
> file
> that contains the path to licheck) ?

That's a good idea, though the online installer has always been optional. But 
yeah,
we can make this easier for this setup then.

> > then all we have to add to qtbase is the .release-timestamp file to
> > mark the date of a release.
> 
> Can you determine the time of the release from the release tag perhaps? git
> describe can be used to find the "nearest" tag and the tag has a date.

Maybe, I'll need to study this a bit more. For now, adding the 
.release-timestamp just looked the most straighforward solution to me.

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

Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Thiago Macieira]

On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 14:49:06 -03 Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
> Can .pro files test for commercial vs. oss licenses?  If so, and you create
> a non-Qt project repo, couldn't some .pro in qtbase retrieve licheck, like
> QtCreator does here:
> http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt-creator/qt-creator.git/tree/qtcreator.pro#n123?

configure no longer saves anything, whether you pass -opensource or -
commercial. The options are currently dummy.

But they could be changed back to saving something.

-- 
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] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.)]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 9:43 AM Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 10:31:17 -03 Kai Koehne wrote:
> > Well, the whole point of the exercise is to allow customers to 
> > configure Qt under commercial terms from git, so any non-shared git module 
> > doesn't help.
>
> You can then make it public, so long as it's clear it's Qt Company, not Qt 
> Project. I object to it showing up anywhere in github.com/qt and > qt- 
> project.org, but other places in qt.io could be acceptable.

Can .pro files test for commercial vs. oss licenses?  If so, and you create a 
non-Qt project repo, couldn't some .pro in qtbase retrieve licheck, like 
QtCreator does here: 
http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt-creator/qt-creator.git/tree/qtcreator.pro#n123?

Is that an acceptable solution?  Seems like it would work here, although I 
think the time stamp generation and commercial licenses would need to be added 
to qtbase (I think).

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

Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Thiago Macieira]

On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 10:31:17 -03 Kai Koehne wrote:
> > In your internal infra, use a different repository branched off from the
> > public one, containing the licence checker binary and anything else you
> > may need. This repository should never be shared.
> 
> Well, the whole point of the exercise is to allow customers to configure Qt
> under commercial terms from git, so any non-shared git module doesn't help.

You can then make it public, so long as it's clear it's Qt Company, not Qt 
Project. I object to it showing up anywhere in github.com/qt and qt-
project.org, but other places in qt.io could be acceptable.

-- 
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] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Simon Hausmann]

On Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2018 15:31:17 CEST Kai Koehne wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io@qt-
> > project.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:21 PM
> > To: development@qt-project.org
> > Subject: Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing
> > 
> > On Friday, 18 May 2018 18:18:02 -03 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > > Just for clarification: The official source packages contain the
> > > > licheck executables already. My aim is that a git checkout and the
> > > > source packages we provide contain the very same content.
> > > 
> > > I understand, but I'm asking you not to.
> > 
> > Here's something that would be acceptable:
> > 
> > Do create the qt/licensing repo but make it empty, or just a README file
> > or
> > whatever is necessary. This repository can live in qt-project.org and be
> > mirrored under github.com/qtproject.
> > 
> > In your internal infra, use a different repository branched off from the
> > public one, containing the licence checker binary and anything else you
> > may need. This repository should never be shared.
> 
> Well, the whole point of the exercise is to allow customers to configure Qt
> under commercial terms from git, so any non-shared git module doesn't help.
> 
> We can also ship licheck binaries independently of the git modules, and ask
> then customers to pass their location e.g. via a configure argument:
> 
>  configure -commercial -licheck /path/to/licheck  ...

Would it perhaps be possible for configure to just look in "well known" 
locations in the system where the online installer can place them (or place a 
file that contains the path to licheck) ?
 
> then all we have to add to qtbase is the .release-timestamp file to mark the
> date of a release.

Can you determine the time of the release from the release tag perhaps? git 
describe can be used to find the "nearest" tag and the tag has a date.
 

Simon


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

Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Thiago Macieira]

On Friday, 18 May 2018 18:18:02 -03 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Just for clarification: The official source packages contain the licheck
> > executables already. My aim is that a git checkout and the source packages
> > we provide contain the very same content.
> 
> I understand, but I'm asking you not to.

Here's something that would be acceptable:

Do create the qt/licensing repo but make it empty, or just a README file or 
whatever is necessary. This repository can live in qt-project.org and be 
mirrored under github.com/qtproject.

In your internal infra, use a different repository branched off from the 
public one, containing the licence checker binary and anything else you may 
need. This repository should never be shared.

It's no different than my own qtbase, except that I do share it:
https://gitlab.com/thiagomacieira/qtbase

-- 
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] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Thiago Macieira]

On Friday, 18 May 2018 12:53:00 PDT Kai Koehne wrote:
> > From: Development  on
> > behalf of Thiago Macieira 
> > 
> > 
> > Is the source code for licheck going to be added to the repository?
> 
> No, I'd only add the binaries.
> 
> > If not, then the binary cannot be added to the a Qt Project repository.
> 
> With "Qt Project repository" I guess you mean any git submodule of qt5.git,
> and further submodules? Or is this just the hosting on
> codereview.qt-project.org that you're concerned about?

I understand the lines are blurred between Qt Project and Qt Company with the 
qt.io domain. Let's unblur them:

The Git repositories and this mailing list are Qt Project. Everything there is 
Open Source. Please don't add a binary tool that isn't Open Source, even if it 
is freely redistributable.

> Just for clarification: The official source packages contain the licheck
> executables already. My aim is that a git checkout and the source packages
> we provide contain the very same content.

I understand, but I'm asking you not to.

-- 
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] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Kai Koehne]

> As such, the repository should be readable by everyone, but write access 
> should be limited to The Qt Company.
>
> I don’t understand how would that solve the issue.  Wouldn’t this repo need 
> to be cloned and then (somehow) merged with qtbase?

Yes, it would be a git submodule of qtbase.


> If public

> read/download access if not a concern, wouldn’t it make more sense to just 
> add licheck and the licenses to qtbase repo?


That would indeed be the easiest. I proposed a separate submodule because
a) binary checkins will blow up repository content over time, which we should 
avoid for central modules like qtbase.

b) people that want to just use the opensource version or a tech preview 
version can just ignore the submodule.


Alternatively, the submodule can also be a qt5.git submodule, instead of a 
qtbase one. The logic in qtbase could still locate a repository relative to 
qtbase.


Kai


From: Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) <bstot...@ford.com>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 4:45:20 PM
To: Kai Koehne; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing

On 5/18/18, 10:36 AM, "Development on behalf of Kai Koehne" 
<development-bounces+bstottle=ford@qt-project.org on behalf of 
kai.koe...@qt.io> wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to request the creation of a repository "qt/licensing" on 
codereview.qt-project.org. This will become an optional git submodule of qtbase 
(checkout: qtbase/licensing).

The repository will contain the Licenses and binary files (licheck*) that 
are so far only in our commercial source packages. The goal is to allow proper 
commercial builds from git, see also 
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-5.

As such, the repository should be readable by everyone, but write access 
should be limited to The Qt Company.

I don’t understand how would that solve the issue.  Wouldn’t this repo need to 
be cloned and then (somehow) merged with qtbase?  If public read/download 
access if not a concern, wouldn’t it make more sense to just add licheck and 
the licenses to qtbase repo?

Brett

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

Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Kai Koehne]

> From: Development  on 
> behalf of Thiago Macieira 

>
> Is the source code for licheck going to be added to the repository?

No, I'd only add the binaries.

> If not, then the binary cannot be added to the a Qt Project repository.

With "Qt Project repository" I guess you mean any git submodule of qt5.git, and 
further submodules? Or is this just the hosting on codereview.qt-project.org 
that you're concerned about?

Just for clarification: The official source packages contain the licheck 
executables already. My aim is that a git checkout and the source packages we 
provide contain the very same content.

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

Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Thiago Macieira]

On Friday, 18 May 2018 07:36:37 PDT Kai Koehne wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to request the creation of a repository "qt/licensing" on
> codereview.qt-project.org. This will become an optional git submodule of
> qtbase (checkout: qtbase/licensing).
> 
> The repository will contain the Licenses and binary files (licheck*) that
> are so far only in our commercial source packages. The goal is to allow
> proper commercial builds from git, see also
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-5.
> 
> As such, the repository should be readable by everyone, but write access
> should be limited to The Qt Company.

Is the source code for licheck going to be added to the repository?

If not, then the binary cannot be added to the a Qt Project repository.

-- 
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] Repository Request: qt/licensing

[Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.)]

On 5/18/18, 10:36 AM, "Development on behalf of Kai Koehne" 
 wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to request the creation of a repository "qt/licensing" on 
codereview.qt-project.org. This will become an optional git submodule of qtbase 
(checkout: qtbase/licensing). 

The repository will contain the Licenses and binary files (licheck*) that 
are so far only in our commercial source packages. The goal is to allow proper 
commercial builds from git, see also 
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-5.

As such, the repository should be readable by everyone, but write access 
should be limited to The Qt Company.

I don’t understand how would that solve the issue.  Wouldn’t this repo need to 
be cloned and then (somehow) merged with qtbase?  If public read/download 
access if not a concern, wouldn’t it make more sense to just add licheck and 
the licenses to qtbase repo?

Brett

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