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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Relicensing another author's work
From:       Raphael Kubo da Costa <kubito () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-06-12 16:27:02
Message-ID: 68c3445d0906120927w11d0c0e4j7806b52aecfaebab () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2009/6/12 Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk>:
> 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 <thiago@kde.org>:
> 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 <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]