From kde-devel Fri Jun 12 16:27:02 2009 From: Raphael Kubo da Costa Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:27:02 +0000 To: kde-devel Subject: Re: Relicensing another author's work Message-Id: <68c3445d0906120927w11d0c0e4j7806b52aecfaebab () mail ! gmail ! com> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=124482414206500 2009/6/12 Sune Vuorela : > 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. Does this mean that any program that uses, say KFileDialog, can't link to it, since it may be linked to libsmb to view samba folders or something? > The day might also come when it is actually needed to remove the code. 2009/6/12 Thiago Macieira : > Any new code must be either gplv2-or-later or gplv2-or-v3-or-approved-by- > e.V. > > See 4 and 5 in http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy. Basically you all are saying that new code that's GPLv2-only isn't allowed into the code base. What about old code, like in this case? According to Sune it makes the whole Ark GPLv2-only and (I think) we are actually not allowed to even open an open file dialog. Besides, some Ark plugins are BSD-licensed and probably link to parts of the code that are GPL-licensed. If it's GPLv2 or GPLv2+ it doesn't cause any licensing trouble, right? >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<