[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: calligra-devel
Subject: Re: GPL Linking exception or transformation to LGPL?
From: Jos van den Oever <jos.van.den.oever () kogmbh ! com>
Date: 2015-06-15 7:22:46
Message-ID: 557E7D46.9000707 () kogmbh ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On 06/15/2015 09:16 AM, Jos van den Oever wrote:
> On 06/15/2015 09:03 AM, Alexander Potashev wrote:
>> 2015-06-15 9:52 GMT+03:00 Jos van den Oever
>> <jos.van.den.oever@kogmbh.com>:
>>> On 06/15/2015 08:44 AM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Christophe,
>>>> I find it awesome. As history shows our contribution model is largely
>>>> based on such cases.
>>>> Several things:
>>>> - as Jos has said unless the code is distributed, no changes have
>>>> (even in GPL) to be published; we're not using AGPL
>>>> - architectural: to encourage reuse we need to have a library, could
>>>> you list the files you're using?
>>>> - practical: if you list files that you need we can collect list of
>>>> persons that own the copyright
>>>
>>>
>>> The list was attached to the previous mail. The paths are all in
>>> relative to
>>> the sheets/ directory. The files contain copyrights like this:
>>>
>>> Copyright (C) 1998-2002 The KSpread Team <calligra-devel@kde.org>
>>> Copyright (C) 2010 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies).
>>>
>>> for f in $(cat /tmp/files.txt |cut -f 1 -d ' '); do grep copyright -i
>>> $f;
>>> done|sort|uniq
>>
>> Hi Jos,
>>
>> More importantly, _all_ the files listed in files.txt are under GNU
>> Library GPL v2 only:
>> This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
>> License as published by the Free Software Foundation; only
>> version 2 of the License.
>>
>> Does this mean we cannot relicense under e.g. LGPLv2.1?
>
> Yes, it's not possible to relicense to LGPLv2.1 without approval of all
> copyright holders. It's also not possible to change code under a
> GPL2-only license to GPLv3 without approval of the copyright holders.
I did not read Alexanders mail accurately, but the answer is still no. I
realize that it says '2' and so you could argue relicensing to '2.1' is
a loophole. I take 'only version 2' to mean 'only this exact version'.
BTW KDE has a fiduciary license. For signees of that license, KDE e.V.
can decide on a relicense.
https://ev.kde.org/rules/fla.php
Cheers,
Jos
_______________________________________________
calligra-devel mailing list
calligra-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic