There are so many threads even in this, not just the old forums with endlessly IRC meeting logs where you could have gotten all information about this immedeately. No, there isn’t a plan. Please use the forum search next time.
this is bad reply, guess what result is the first one right now when I tried to search for ‘upgrade qt’?
It was this topic! And your answer which tells the user to…use search search function.
It’s better to provide a link to valid post instead of directing one to the search engine, because never post will much likely be higher in the result.
So, can you please provide link describing this? As I’m unable to find one.
The discussion was done so many years, but the legal side doesn’t change. So as long as you 1st understand the 2 licenses since 5.7, the legal problem ahead & bring in something new except the version is very old, the 1212311247th time, don’t. We, as a community need a solution, wich could be:
Founding a non-profit, which buys a part of Jolla & uses it to push community topics. Some people made an incredible effort for this hopefully becoming reality.
Someone out of the community writes a Silica & lipstick replacement that works with latest Qt5, possibly Qt6. Apps then would still needed to be ported, but it would raise the pressure if other Linux mobile distros could run a hardly changed Sailfish application.
I don’t see any other solution that do involve the community. So please, bring in something new or let it, the whole thing is so tiring & we could have discussed things with achievable goals instead.
Both ideas sounds great, while I prefer the second one.
Is that using the LGPLv3 licensing Qt library, has a conflict with Jolla’s business ? As a new user to SFOS, I feel the current SFOS is just like a demo of ‘integrating app-support to existing Linux-based systems’, which runs really great.
Maybe we can start it from building a OSS version SFOS
anyway, what I understand the original plan was to upgrade to Qt5.15.x but as the porting process was so slow and Qt6 is now more mature they seem to have moving to it instead …(at least when looking on some of the work at their github, they did start port stuff to 5.15.x and now there is work towards 6.x)
There are a number of 5.9 bugs in components that are LGPL that we could start gathering a list of. Those one could backport fixes for without issue. I’m thinking of the OSM geoservices plugin fail as an instance. I’m working on a non-violating patch, but have a bunch of stuff to do.
Interesting. I wonder if QtWayland reverted back to allowing LGPL silently. GPL-only there would indeed have been a potential blocker (but the ~5.9 effort surely was aborted before that license change).
Although it is not clear to me that the existence of such a license file necessarily means it applies to the whole project.
My best-guess was always that the anti-tivolizarion in LGPL3 was a big risk for being able to lock bootloaders and sign stuff in commercial projects. This was somewhat corroborated by abr’s recent talk, iirc.
My memory fails me on where exactly that was… i’ll see if it comes back to me later and edit that in.
Those 5.15 and 6.x patches are not from Jolla that i have seen, but from other projects using these components, or wanting to try them out. I.e. the likes of PostmarketOS, Nemo/Glacier and so on.
Very nice to read that. I’m not coming to do it before xmas & I doubt the load will outgrow my wallet that fast. But once we can estimate how much the load will be in the long-term, it’d be nice to hand financial & legal aspects over to the coop.
… since QT 6.4, but not before that if you look closely.
Can you please provide specific pointers (i.e., web-links) to what you mean / saw: I cannot find any newer Qt-version imported there by sailors after their long stalled Qt 5.9 efforts at SailfishOS@GitHub.
[…] because [the *GPLv3 licenses] consistently use the term “user” (instead of “licensee” etc. as all other FLOSS licenses do, including the *GPLv2s), plus one must provide the “user” with full control over the *GPLv3 software (the “Anti-TiVO paragraph”) including the ability to alter it anytime at free will.
This renders *GPLv3 licensed software unsuitable for devices which are not user-controlled, e.g., MDM-managed devices in a company or government office, and generally any device, whose user is not its owner (specifically when the right to use and the right of possession are both transferred to a user).