Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

Yes, but after that they helped Coderus to solve problem with overlay.

Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

First: after! (a lot of devices 'crashed/reflashed', ya know)
Second: orly? Then I must have missed this. Where and when, do you have a link, please?

--
but we are derailing this thread here, sorry for the noise.

Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

Ad Second. They suggested him to use this https://git.sailfishos.org/mer-core/...27801261_23_39

And here is the result:
https://github.com/CODeRUS/harbour-s...e41d9b228cb011

Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

Dear @rinigus,

O.K.

No, all relevantMost Qt-libraries are licensed LGPL (v3 nowadays) or commercially (at the customer's choice), so any software can link to these libraries (regardless if FLOSS or not).

@zeta already hinted that in
, but there is no choice to make ("also") between LGPL and GPL, only between a FLOSS license (a specific ?GPLvX one) and their commercial one (this is badly phrased multiple times at their licensing web pages):
Digia / "The Qt company" chooses the licenses for their software components very well (primarily for their own goals), i.e. LGPL for all basic libraries (which they want to be used easily by everyone) and GPL for a few components, which are not essential and for which they want to restrict their usage.
They seem to have "fun playing licensing" at premier league level (and plenty of success with it), in contrast to Jolla, which seems to be driven by fear and an avoidance strategy.

Specifically see

• overview of Qt licensing: https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/licensing.html
• specifics of Qt's FLOSS licensing: https://www.qt.io/faq/tag/qt-open-source-licensing
  IMO the most relevant point there is "Why do you have an agreement with KDE about your licensing? What[...]’s the history of Qt and KDE?".
• at https://www.qt.io/product/features the FLOSS-license of every software component can be looked up, which is part of Qt.
• side note: Notice, how consciously "The Qt company" also chooses software they use for and redistribute with Qt!
  Most of it is under a permissive FLOSS license ("BSD-/MIT-/Apache-style"), LGPL or GPL with linking exception (e.g., Bluez), so it cannot interfere with their commercial licensing. For details, see https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/licenses-used-in-qt.html

Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

Dear @olf:

going through https://www.qt.io/product/features#js-6-3 (LGPLv3), I can see that Qt Wayland Compositor is not compatible with it and requires GPLv3 (or "commercial"). Lipstick runs on it, but fortunately it is open-source. Not sure of the rest of the composer.

Qt Wayland is also used by Flatpak UI, but that is open source.

LGPLv3 has Tivoization/DRM clauses (referred to in Qt FAQ) which maybe an issue for Jolla as well.

Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

I was going to say "It's (only) a UI toolkit!" - But then I seem to remember that Qt has modules that provide direct access to the internet? I guess that's where security comes in.

Yes, this I expected and understand.

Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

Good catch, thanks!
I went through the list and thought, "really everything essential is LGPL", but missed Qt Wayland Compositor. So this is only the case under X11, which is useless on SailfishOS and becomes less and less relevant on other Linux distributions.

Let us assume it all is (also because I want to limit our research on this at some point), so rather the v3 (vs. v2 up to and including Qt 5.6) poses an issue for Jolla here, than the GPL (vs. LGPL) specifically for Qt Wayland Compositor.

Edit / side note: And while Jolla can do little to change the licensing situation of third party components (trying to negotiate with "The Qt company" is likely futile; and swapping components, like GNU-utilities -> Busybox, is impossible for Qt), but can alter the licenses of their own components at their own will.

It likely is, as denoted in the lengthy "side note" WRT *GPLv3 of my original post here.

P.S.: The longer we discuss this, the clearer it becomes that there is no easy way out of this for Jolla, if there is any viable path for them through Ex-Digia's licensing thicket at all.
But our starting point was that leaving SailfishOS "stuck" at Qt 5.6 is not a viable path for SailfishOS and its ecosystem, either!
:\

Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

Not exactly the same topic but somehow related ?
https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/silic...urce-code/3561

Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

https://together.jolla.com/question/...embrace-gplv3/

The current Jolla is even worse than the Jolla of the past. It's clear to me the Maemo people were right and I was wrong. Sorry everyone I discussed with.


This looks super dubious. Any source?

Re: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
 

As explained, the GPL v3.
Its "core innovation", the anti-TiVo clause in combination with its consistent (-ly idiotic) "user" wording!
As intended, *GPLv3 software must be alterable by a user, for which cryptographic (and any other) mechanisms must be circumventable by a user.

HTH