[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-commits
Subject:    Re: kdelibs/khtml/misc
From:       Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date:       2004-02-04 0:19:36
Message-ID: 200402040119.36064.frans.englich () telia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 04 February 2004 00:44, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2004 13:36, Kazuki Ohta wrote:
> > CVS commit by kzk:
> >
> > This is the more enhanced version of Japanese encoding detection
> > code.
> >
> > The original one cannot detect UTF-8 correctly, so I improved this
> > and now, KHTML can detect it.
> >
> > This routine(guess_jp) is derived from the one which is used in
> > Gauche, the Scheme interpreter, and it is BSD licensed(so I include
> > the copyright). I contacted Takumi Asaki(asaki@kde.gr.jp), who is the
> > author of original code, and he said OK to commit this code.

Is he the sole copyrighter? Did he say OK to license it under LGPL? If not, 
ask him again, otherwise I think the code will have to be ripped out..
(suck up to him, beg him :)

>
> Is it actually possible to mix two licenses in the same file? Even if it
> was possible then those parts of the file which are BSD licensed must
> be clearly marked as such and must be clearly separated from the LGPL
> licensed code. I suggest to put the BSD licensed code into a cpp file
> of its own. The code should be pretty much self-contained.

But isn't BSD compatible with LGPL? If BSD code was relicensed under LGPL, 
would that break the BSD conditions? (IOW, is there really a problem?)

>
> Apart from that I'd like to point out the following:
> =====
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> =====
>
> I guess the copyright notice will have to be added to the API
> documentation.

Is that acceptable? AFAIK /all/ library code is released under LGPL and that 
is what people expect and assumes. Specific license conditions here and there 
would make the situation chaotic, me thinks. Not mentioning feeding all the 
FUD about KDE's license terms.


		Frans

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]