[...] Going with GPLv3 version may require opening many (all?) SFOS closed components. We are talking about applications and libraries. That is another aspect they probably consider.
In general, I guess we have to keep asking and also look for whatever other solutions we can come up with.
Not sure that installing newer Qt in /opt (as I suggested) is such a great idea. I suspect there will be quite some packaging work involved in "breaking packages" in terms of removing all kind of "provides" to avoid clashes with the system-installed ones.
PS: Note that for visibility on Jolla's side, we should have this correspondence on their forum. As far as I have seen so far, Jolla's folks don't comment over here, unfortunately. PPS: Feel free to copy-and-paste the original letter at the new forum and I will paste the reply
A plea to finally do any practical step towards a newer Qt (technical and practical) A plea to finally make a decision and communicate a plan WRT upgraded Qt releases for SFOS (organisational) A plea to seriously reconsider the "GPLv3 ban" for SFOS (license strategy) While this might have resolved Jolla's non-technical issues with newer Qt releases a while ago, the current conditions for commercial licensees (i.e., who is defined as such) may counter that. Another point to research. A combination of above IMO, rather not, this overloads the letter, and allows to diverge into a question, which is easy to answer, while ignoring the other ones. Demanding any of these points, instead of asking kindly, will probably raise the chance of no reply to 100%, but OTOH the wording shall not be too soft, because the "ancient Qt issue" has become a serious and strategic one, technically and WRT licensing, by Jolla not addressing it for years and "the Qt company" winding up their licensing scheme repeatedly. Something else to conclude with?