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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Source licenses and KAboutData.
From:       Michael Pyne <michael.pyne () kdemail ! net>
Date:       2007-12-03 2:14:09
Message-ID: 200712022114.11775.michael.pyne () kdemail ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


On Sunday 02 December 2007, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >Michael Pyne wrote:
> >>I'd like for this to be resolved before 4.0 obviously, especially if we
> >>release most of KDE as GPLv3.
> >
> >I think you mean "before 4.1".
> >
> >KDE 4.0 cannot be GPLv3 or LGPLv3 yet.
>
> Unless you mean "upgradable to GPLv3". If so, then I agree that we should
> have the extra enums and extra licenses files.

Well I don't really mean that as that is a lot of license combinations.  And 
whether or not it can be upgraded by e.V. is something best left for the 
source code comments I think.  I mean it more along the lines of "what 
license applies to this program?"

So since the GPL v3 thing is KDE 4.1 that's fine.  But KDE application 
developers can still release GPL v3 software so I think that's something we 
still need to take into account.  Of course they couldn't be GPLv3 and link 
against GPLv2 libraries but kdelibs is LGPL which is allowed.

> If I list the possible license combinations, we have:
> 	GPL v2 only
> 	GPL v2, v3
> 	GPL v2, v3 or later by e.V.
> 	GPL v2 or later
> 	GPL v3 only
> 	GPL v3 or later by e.V.
> 	GPL v3 or later
> rinse & repeat for LGPL

This is a lot of combinations. :)  I think it's best to just use KAboutData 
for the effective overall license (i.e. GPLv2, GPLv3, etc.) and have the 
actual terms for each file in its header.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

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