Thread: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
View Single Post
olf's Avatar
olf is offline olf
2021-03-25 , 22:18
Posts: 304 | Thanked: 1,246 times | Joined on Aug 2015
#38
@javispedro,

Originally Posted by javispedro View Post
And for the record, after asking around, the real reason Jolla is stuck with ancient Qt is because the QtWayland compositor module "graduated" as a non-essential Qt addon and thus changed license from a mixture of BSD+LGPL to GPL only. Only essential Qt components (like the client parts of the Wayland module) remain as LGPL.

Since Silica is apparently still not fully open, this puts them in a problem as the compositor process is linking Silica and Qt Wayland Compositor together. (Plus a lot of porting to do, anyway).
Thank you for independently confirming what @rinigus concluded last November:

Originally Posted by rinigus View Post
[...] GPL has it's purpose and we just have realize it when the license for your code is selected. In case of Qt, it is a way to ask for commercial licenses for non-free software. So, if Jolla goes for Qt update, there maybe a problem with mixing non-free Silica with GPLv3 Qt. [...]
and

Originally Posted by rinigus View Post
[...] 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.[...]

Combined with Jolla's clear statement,

Originally Posted by peterleinchen View Post
[...] https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/silic...urce-code/3561
... that they will not "open source" Silica (and will remove the few references to the LGPL in the Silica sources), a technical way out might be to let Silica not depend on Qt Wayland Compositor, anymore. This may be achieved by some interim layer, be it a new one or by extending an existing one, which is FLOSS.
Or Jolla pays a lot for a commercial license (while "The Qt Co." has a track history of raising the prices regularly), if they have not negotiated some very special conditions (unlikely due to the size difference of the companies and Qt Co's past behaviour).


Also thank you for your constructive contribution.
Hence I take back the
Originally Posted by olf View Post
[...]my dear troll.
I was still hoping for anything substancial from your side.
... because above posting has some substance.

I just assume that you seem to be a very strongly opinionated *GPLv3 and / or FSF fan for now.
Still I want to point out to you on an abstract level, that you exhibited quite some trolling properties, aside of strong fandom:
  • Language: "crazy", "insane" etc. (Thanks!)
  • Grasping at every string, be it a side note, example, etc., while missing (to address) the main points.
  • Deliberately running down every rathole in sight.
    Like the "Dutch museum tablet", which was merely a simple example for a "transfer of the right of use and possession" (i.e., "loaned" / "borrowed" colloquially), which is incompatible with the *GPLv3 family of licenses (without granting all users full device control).
  • Demanding answers to questions from you, which are not relevant for the topic discussed.
  • Not really reading or ignoring what others post or link to, when it does not fit into your view.
  • Ignoring all facts, which contradict your view (e.g., the GPLv3 license text, Google's license strategy, Jolla's license strategy).


Originally Posted by javispedro
The issue is not related to GPLv3 at all. In fact Jolla is already shipping some GPLv3 software in the device images (at least for the original Jolla). E.g. I've just checked and GPLv3 readline is used, for example. So much for the GPLv3 FUD...
Oh well, see (again) the
Originally Posted by olf View Post
[...] IRC community meeting log of 2021-02-25 [...]

So Jolla clearly has "double trouble" here:
  • Silica cannot depend on a newer Qt Wayland Compositor than v5.6, without conflicting with the license change imposed by The Qt Co. (LGPLv2 -> GPLv3)
  • Jolla cannot depend on Qt Wayland Compositor and some other Qt components newer than v5.6, without conflicting with their self-imposed *GPLv3 strategy: A "NoGo" for SFOS components, which may be deployed by default to "big licensees" of SFOS.
Last edited by olf; 2021-03-25 at 23:10.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to olf For This Useful Post: