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

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: [kde-community] licence policy updates
From:       Michael Pyne <mpyne () kde ! org>
Date:       2014-02-16 20:25:31
Message-ID: 34818599.clViZ9TaWM () midna
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, February 14, 2014 10:31:24 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> I've made some proposed changes to the KDE Licensing Policy
> =

> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
> =

> Most significant is the inclusion of GPL 3+ as an option in response
> to a request by GCompris and a desire voiced by a few people not to
> treat it as an exception.

I was writing up a short draft guide on how to pick a license which got me =
to =

looking at our current FLA Relicensing Policy (v1.3.1, =

http://ev.kde.org/resources/FRP.pdf).

Although it speaks to relicensing under the FLA process (the FLA form itsel=
f =

mentions GPL and LGPL without giving versions), it also gives a flat list o=
f =

acceptable KDE licenses, split in license groups. AFAICS this is *the* list=
 of =

permissible licenses as determined by the e.V. General Assembly, whether =

contributors adopt into the FLA or not.

I noticed that GPLv3 *is* an acceptable license for non-library code, eithe=
r =

GPLv3, GPLv3+, or GPLv3 w/ Qt exceptions. GPLv2 is certainly a valid option =

but it does not appear to be mandatory.

The FRP also lists the Techbase Licensing Policy page as being informative, =

not normative (end of =A72 on page 2).

It seems to me that GCompris is already in license compliance and that we n=
eed =

merely update the Licensing Policy page to conform to the allowed licenses =
in =

the FRP.

Please let me know if I'm missing something.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]