> On 19 Dec 2024, at 21:31, Jörg Bornemann via Development > <development@qt-project.org> wrote: > > On 12/19/24 12:06 PM, Marc Mutz via Development wrote: > >> 1/ >> I today refused to perform a re-licensing of a .cpp file being renamed >> to .qdoc.¹ QUIP-18² has no provisions for files transitioning between >> what QUIP-18 calls file "classifications"³, even if they have different >> required license specifiers. >> Can someone please clarify the process here? > > Inofficial stance, IANAL disclaimer applies: the file in question has a > "Copyright (C) 2016 The Qt Company Ltd." note. The copyright and IP holder > has decided to change the license from one liberal license to another. The > practical effect this has on anyone is zero. But it makes the license checker > happy, which sees ".qdoc file extension, this must be documentation". > > Even without the sole TQtC copyright the CLA has been signed by all > contributors and to my understanding enables us to change the license. > There's no official process to my knowledge. But some official clarification > might be in order here. > >> 2/ >> In the same vein, it seems to me to be illogical to require to have a >> class-only .qdoc file have a different license from the equivalent .cpp >> file. These files may change from .cpp to .qdoc back back several times, >> depending on whether there is some C++ code in the file or not (doesn't >> have to be the implementation of a member function, could just be a >> static_assert() that we don't want to waste CPU cycles on by including >> it in the header). >> Should be make a distinction between "pure" .qdoc files and those that >> are essentially .cpp files that just lack (C++) content? > > It seems logical to me to categorize .cpp files as source code and .qdoc as > documentation. If the files *really* tend to oscillate between .cpp and > .qdoc, let the license oscillate as well. Proposed process: match what has > been agreed on in QUIP-18. > > I'd refrain from adding heuristics to the license checker to determine > whether a .qdoc file looks a bit too much like a C++ file. > >> 3/ >> And, finally, shouldn't .cpp files that contain qdoc comment blocks >> contain the "right" license for documentation, as it's different from >> code? Then a rename would also not require a re-licensing. > > Theoretically supercorrect would be a strict separation between > "documentation" and "source code". Such an endeavor would be quite costly. I > wonder, what problem are we trying to solve here?
What Joerg says. It might not be perfect in every aspect, but it’s certainly good enough and workable. Volker -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
