13.01.2017, 13:29, "René J.V. Bertin" <rjvber...@gmail.com>: > Hello, > > Can someone please have a look at the KDE RR below and tell us whether or not > it's OK to include qicohandler.* the way I propose in the patch under review? > There are some whitespace changes and I added a preprocessor token to exclude > ico read support. > My understanding of the GPL legalese is that it should be OK but Christoph is > right that we have to double-check.
Your ksvg2ico.cpp is licensed as LGPL 2.1 or 3, while QtIcoHandler is licensed as LGPL3, so combined work cannot be used as LGPL 2.1. If these is fine, I don't see any problems here (but IANAL) Alternatively you can import QtIcoHandler from Qt 5.6 which is licensed as LGPL 2.1 > > Maybe we all overlooked something and there is another way to create .ico > files, without needing to use (and thus include) QtIcoHandler explicitly? I > see that the relevant QtBase code is built on Linux and Mac but I cannot tell > whether it is also installed (the header isn't in any case). > > Thanks, > René > > ------------------------------- > Forwarded message: > Date: Friday January 13 2017 > From: Christoph Feck <cf...@kde.org> > Subject: Re: Review Request 129807: proposal: add ksvg2ico > > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129807/#review101968 > > Someone more experienced with legal matters should review the verbatim > inclusion of Qt code; in particular the license header. > > - Christoph Feck > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
