This is a question for more legal-minded folk, but it doesn't hurt to
reach out to those who may have existing developer experience with this.
Apologies if this isn't the right place for this line of questioning.
Looking at where the Linux desktop is headed, having some kind of
support for the Wayland environment is a must. Fortunately, Qt does
provide the ability to run applications in a Wayland session via the
QtWayland QPA plugins. As some proprietary software providers use the
OSS core Qt stack and bundle the self-built framework along with their
applications, the GPL licensing of QtWayland is potentially a legal
roadblock on the path to Wayland adoption.
The applications themselves would not (to my knowledge) touch QtWayland
code, but the module's libraries would be distributed along with the
rest of the framework and application. If the intent is to only build
and ship QtWayland in order to provide the QPA plugins that Qt will use
at runtime, would this have any impact on the applications' licensing
during distribution?
Additionally, considering Wayland is becoming a core piece of the Linux
ecosystem is there a reason why the QtWayland module doesn't follow the
same licensing as QtBase where the other QPA plugins are provided?
Cheers,
Mike
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
