> On 20 Jan 2015, at 14:28, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > > Louis asks about a dependency on LGPL. > > -- replying below to -- > From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 07:05 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Qt as a replacement for VCL > > [ ... ] > > Indeed, thanks. But let me get this straight. The Qt license, which for us > would be LGPL, is not an obstacle? (I know you described a possible usage > that did not seem to transgress license. But we should need to be rather > careful here.) > > <orcmid> > Yuri had intentionally stayed away from the license question and > simply described his impression of Qt in terms of technology. > However, I do believe that having Qt in place of VCL would be > very serious (although allowing Qt under VCL as an *option* is different). > > I believe the governing conditions in the Apache Project Maturity Model > (https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel) are CD20, > CD30, and especially LC20. > Going to Qt would be more than a requirement for using the compiled > code, it would also be a requirement for being able to compile the code. > In the case of writing aids that are made available with AOO binaries > (or as extensions), there is no dependency concerning licensed material > at the AOO source-code level. The license accompanies the extension, > but the extension's usage at the AOO level is indifferent and the > extensions are replaceable. Recall the project was very careful about > that.
Yes. That was what I had in mind regarding Qt for extensions. Ie, for add on applications that essentially operated after AOO compiled. > > Relying on Qt, even as a redistributable shared library obtained from the > Qt project, makes it not possible to build AOO without that dependency, > and it would permeate the APIs and source-code architecture everywhere. > Apart from the effort required to do that, I think that is a serious > intrusion of an LGPL dependency into the entire project. That was my impression. > > I think there is an open question about sliding Qt under VCL as simply a > platform adaptation. Exactly. > My question to Yuri was about what he knew concerning > lifecycle management in handling that. I believe that remains to be > explored. That might be someone's itch to scratch, but I don't think it > should distract the project at this point. I think there are many other > pressing matters that require someone with both an itch and the means to > scratch it. Okay. > > I also think there is some sort of confusion of Qt with respect to Webkit. > I am not certain what that is. However, to the degree one is interested > in moving toward light-weight GUIs that take advantage of the HTML5, CSS, > and JavaScript support on devices and the cloud, there seem to be more > direct avenues that one might consider for AOO, although I for one am > completely ignorant of what that would disrupt in the current AOO > architecture and source-code structures. I for one would suggest that those of us wanting to use WebKit for building interesting apps consider Corinthia ;-) > > Squirrel !;<). > </orcmid> > > Thanks, Dennis Louis PS nothing stops one from building AOO on Qt *outside* of Apache, of course, but then why? (Besides driving the LO crowd crazy with confusion.) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
