[oe] [meta-qt5][PATCH] qt5: add missing commercial license

[Christian Gagneraud]

On 22 September 2017 at 02:31, Kwangsub Kim <kwangsub.kim at qt.io> wrote:
> I agree on clearing up complex logical expressions of licenses. But
> I think it's another topic because it would need wider updates including
> the other packages unrelated to commercial license fix.
> What about discussing about it on new thread after this patch?

Yeah, maybe. Does Yocto care about license ambiguity? My understanding
was that yes it does.
The pitch is that it's one of the Yocto's strength: get a clear
picture about license issue, isn't it?

I've been following and using yocto/bitbake/oe/poky/angstrom/... for a
wee while now and i think that the current state of licensing is
out-of-control, yet Yocto/LF pretends to be in full-control.

Qt licensing is not an easy topic. The Linux Fundation needs to be
razor sharp about it.

What can i access from meta-qt5 in [L]GPLv(2|3) mode?
Is LF's meta-qt5 safer than Qt's own meta-qt5?

What i can access with a commercial Qt license as of October 2017 is
purely a "The Qt Company" business decision.

"Hackers" wan't to know, without ambiguity, what they have access to
given a "license" context (Open source or commercial).

My 2 cents.
Chris