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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: ANN: Java and C bindings regenerated for KDE 3.1
From:       Richard Dale <Richard_Dale () tipitina ! demon ! co ! uk>
Date:       2002-11-29 1:06:22
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 27 November 2002 10:58 pm, Roberto H. Alsina wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26 2002 at 11:04:12pm +0000, Richard Dale wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 November 2002 1:36 pm, Roberto H. Alsina wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 26 2002 at 02:28:55pm +0000, Richard Dale wrote:
> > > > Hi Roberto
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday 26 November 2002 12:48 pm, Roberto H. Alsina wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 26 2002 at 07:57:36am +0000, Richard Dale wrote:
> > > > > > > Does this mean that QtC will change to LGPL too?  We have been
> > > > > > > moving away from it, but this has prevented a similar change to
> > > > > > > LGPL for the Qt# bindings.  BTW, I have successfully built QtC
> > > > > > > agains Qt non-commercial on Windows, but I couldn't distribute
> > > > > > > do to incompatibility between non-commercial and GPL'd libs.  I
> > > > > > > even have a Visual C++ project file if you need one although
> > > > > > > maybe cross-compilation via mingw would be probably be better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's no problem with me. But the qtc project was derived
> > > > > > from an earlier version writen by Roberto Alisina which was GPL'd
> > > > > > - so it would be best to ask him, but I wouldn't have thought
> > > > > > he'd mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > <Mills lane in celebrity deathmatch>
> > > > > I'll allow it!
> > > > > </Mills lane in celebrity deathmatch>
> > > > >
> > > > > Or, in more serious terms, Richard, do you want me to sign
> > > > > copyright over to you? You are the one doing all the work, you
> > > > > should be able to do the choices :-)
> > > >
> > > > Yes thanks Roberto - what if I leave your name and copyright notice
> > > > on the sources that are still there from your original project. But
> > > > add 'Library' (or is it supposed to be 'lesser') to the GPL text.
> > > > Then say that the license had been changed with your permission in
> > > > the AUTHORS bit from GPL to LGPL.
> > >
> > > Fine by me. Please, if it is the same to you, use Library, that is LGPL
> > > v2, and license it under that one, not "under v2 or later".
> >
> > I'd rather use the same COPYING.LIB text that I find in kdelibs -
> > whatever variiant of LGPL we use, surely it's better to have the same
> > one. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not sure what difference this makes, but I
> > would have thought that it was a good idea to keep the licenses the same
> > throughout KDE - whether GPL or LGPL.
> >
> > -- Richard
>
> Well, the "Lesser" one is even fuller of propaganda and political garbage.
> But yes, if it makes it any simpler, go ahread, just dont put the "any
> later version" language, or you are a hostage of the FSF.
No I disagree with this - all of KDE should have the same sort of licenses 
whether GPL or LGPL- if it's good enough for kdelibs, it's good enough for 
kdebindings. You're saying 'go ahead', at the same time dictating what seem 
to me to be arbitrary restrictions. If you check out the qtc code you'll find 
that out of 72000 LOC there is only 300 LOC that you have written (that would 
be only useful in a test harness, it isn't called from the qtobjc or qtsharp 
code). I have been working on the KDE C bindings in the last week, you last 
worked on C bindings five years ago. I am the primary maintainer, and will 
remove your code if you are unhappy with the standard LGPL license. But of 
course I'm entirely happy to ensure that you get due credit for getting my 
work on the bindings bootstrapped via *ideas*, not code.

-- Richard
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]