Re: [Openhpi-devel] HPI GUI application proposal

[Bryan S. <Bry...@hp...>]

Mohan asked me to comment on licenses; I think what's being proposed is
fine.  Let me clarify what I think I've heard to this point:

      * The new code will not be a required part of the OpenHPI
        library/daemon
      * The new code will be licensed under the BSD, consistent with the
        rest of OpenHPI

What I've assumed, but not heard directly, is that no part of Qt will be
checked into the OpenHPI repository.  This new code simply makes use of
the Qt library, much like other parts of OpenHPI make use of the OpenSSL
library.

I would object to adding code from other open source projects into the
OpenHPI repository.  Doing so would represent a fork of those other open
source projects, and result in two copies of the same code in different
open source projects.  But I don't think Anton is proposing that here.

I would also counsel against changing the basic license of OpenHPI.
Though there may be a good reason to do so some day, I believe that many
of the contributing companies do so because they know that the BSD
license is compatible with their proprietary, commercial products.
OpenHPI has always benefited from this commercial support, and we
probably shouldn't limit commercial access to the source code because of
a choice of license.  Again, Anton is not proposing a basic license
change with this addition.

On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 17:42 -0600, mohan@fc wrote:
> Qt is shipped under various licenses. I am not an expert in licenses,
> but seeing GPL v3 with special exceptions
> ( http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html ) cautions me
> little more.  It is better to consult knowledgeable people in this area
> before adding a code that depends on GPL v3 software for compilation and
> usage.

A couple of points here:

      * I believe Qt is now LGPL, not GPL.  This allows linking an
        application against Qt without affecting the basic license of
        the application.  As a specific example, OpenHPI already uses
        the glib library, and it is also LGPL.  So the use of Qt should
        pose no additional license requirements above what we already
        have.
      * There is concern over the version 3 of both the GPL and LGPL
        among certain users.  However, OpenHPI does not contribute to
        the Qt development, it only uses it.  This should alleviate most
        concerns among those who object to parts of the version 3
        licenses.

Again, I don't see any problems with what's being proposed.  Thanks,
Anton, for all your great work for OpenHPI.

Cheers,
Bryan Sutula