> 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

Reply via email to