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

[Paul Eggleton]

Hi Mikko,

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 12:40:27 AM NZDT Mikko.Rapeli at bmw.de wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:01:09AM +0000, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
> > 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:
> > >> 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!

FYI the patch that was backported [1] [2] first appeared in qtbase in v5.4.0-alpha1 in 2014 which was prior to the re-licensing that happened in 5.6.

> 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.

Indeed, thanks for the reminder. I think we probably want to leave qt4's LICENSE as-is though, since the upstream code is available under LGPLv2.1 and I think it would be odd if we were to remove that just for the sake of a few patches.

Cheers
Paul

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/qt-kde-team/qt/qt4-x11/commit/0d4a3dd61ccb156dee556c214dbe91c04d44a717
[2] https://github.com/qt/qtbase/commit/c35a3f519007af44c3b364b9af86f6a336f6411b

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel System Software Products