On 2009-06-12, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
>> I've been in contact with the author and after some exchanged e-mails
>> he said "I have heard from a KDE guy that there are plenty of
>> contributors to KDE who will not relicence their software GPL3 and
>> that's perfectly fine, it's only required for a very few projects. So
>> I won't do it either".
>> 
>> After reading the licensing policy article in Techbase I felt
>> GPLv2-only code wasn't allowed. Is it perfectly fine or not? Does this
>> code need to be removed from the tree?

I think the licensing policy is still "no new code" should be added that
wasn't both gplv2 and gplv3 compatible, and we should slowly work
towards making teh entire code gplv2 and gplv3 compatible.

If your applicationnn is a mix of gplv2orlater and gplv2only, it is
effectively gplv2only.

For example, libsmb, a requirement of parts of kdelibs, is gplv3. If
your application is effectively gplv2only, you can't link against such
parts of kdelibs.

You also can't use any 3rd party libraries under gplv3 or lgplv3 in your
application.

So no, you don't need to remove it from the tree yet, but you need to be
very very careful, and maybe contact the author again with a pointer to
the "relicensing matrix" that shows that almost everyone has accepted to
relicense their software.
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing

The day might also come when it is actually needed to remove the code.


> There should be no need for the relicensing -- period. gpl-v2 code is gpl code
> just as gpl-v3 code is gpl code. If code licensed under the original gpl is
> included in a gpl-v2 project, then there isn't any prohibition against

Lies.

> licensing the entire new project under gpl-v2. Same with gpl-v2 code used in a
> gpl-v3 project licensed ultimately under a gpl-v3 license. It's a giant "who cares"

Who cares about downloading the newest block buster from pirate bay?
Who cares about driving drunk?
Who cares about breaking the laws and making kde undistributable for
anyone doing kde binaries?


> For kde4 the issue may be fun to debate, but in the end all of the gpl2 code
> incorporated into the project will be released under whatever gplXX the kde
> team/board decides but from a copyright or contributor standpoint, I don't
> think they would have standing to complain about whatever XX ends up being.

There is no requirements for copyright assignments in kde, so the kde
board can not do anything. The copyright of the code is owned by *the
developer* himself.

> Say...KDE is preparing to become a closed-source proprietary shop are they ;-)

KDE can't. KDE doesn't own the code.



 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<