[oe] [meta-qt4][PATCH 0/2] fix qt4 for zeus

[Mikko.Rapeli at bmw.de]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:01:09AM +0000, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
> Hello Mikko,
> 
> On 11/18/19 10:13 AM, Mikko.Rapeli at bmw.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:12:56PM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> >> Hi Jeroen
> >>
> >> On Monday, 18 November 2019 10:44:37 AM NZDT Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
> >>> Gcc 9.2 miscompiles the foreach resulting in broken applications.
> >>> This backports a fix from qt5 to make it work again. The fix is
> >>> not written for this issue, but it does solve it.
> >>>
> >>> As a prepartion it includes some whitespace fixes, so the patches
> >>> are aligned in the SRC_URI.
> >>>
> >>> Jeroen Hofstee (2):
> >>>    qt4: fix whitespace so it aligns
> >>>    qt4: updates for gcc 9.2
> >> I've merged both of these. I've also created zeus and warrior branches. (For
> >> now I have assumed these two should not be on warrior - let me know if that's
> >> not correct.)
> > It this ok from licensing point of view since LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1 | GPLv3"?
> >
> > I suspect the LGPLv2.1 is not correct if GPLv3 licensed patches from qt5 are there too.
> >
> 
> Since the license of the file this patch is coming from is the same
> as in qt4, I don't understand how you suspect that it conflicts.

Ok, that's great then!

As you know, licensing of qt5 is different, e.g. in meta-qt5/recipes-qt/qt5/qt5.inc says
LICENSE = "GFDL-1.3 & BSD & ( GPL-3.0 & The-Qt-Company-GPL-Exception-1.0 | The-Qt-Company-Commercial ) & ( GPL-2.0+ | LGPL-3.0 | The-Qt-Company-Commercial )"
which does not include LGPLv2.1.

Thus one needs to be very careful when backporting patches, or change the licensing to be
compatible. If qt4 would not include LGPLv2.1 in LICENSE, then backporting GPLv3 licensed
changes from qt5 could be more straight forward.

-Mikko