[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-kimageshop
Subject: Re: Relicensing Krita as LGPLv2+
From: Paragon <french.paragon () gmail ! com>
Date: 2017-01-05 18:13:07
Message-ID: 09aea0e5-0b95-607c-39ed-6ffbe8029190 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Ok for me too, even If I dislike Apple policy on this subject.
Le 05. 01. 17 à 18:51, Wolthera a écrit :
> LGPL's big thing is the linking stuff, right?
>
>
> Yeah, this is fine by me.
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Alvin Wong
> <alvinhochun+krita@gmail.com <mailto:alvinhochun+krita@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Boud,
>
> I'm fine with relicensing my few lines of contributions to LGPL.
>
> Regards,
> Alvin
>
> P.S. Please note that my commit email address doesn't have `+krita` in
> it in case if you're checking the commit log.
>
> 2017-01-05 17:13 GMT+08:00 Boudewijn Rempt <boud@valdyas.org
> <mailto:boud@valdyas.org>>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Umpteenth draft of this mail, but I think we should consider
> relicensing
> > the GPL code in Krita to LGPL.
> >
> > One reason is that now that Krita is on its own, the mix of LGPL
> library
> > code inherited from koffice/calligra and GPL library code
> inherited from
> > Krita makes it hard to move code around; like we just did in the svg
> > branch, creating the kritacommand library from code from krita/image
> > and libs/kundo2. That code needs to be relicensed to LGPL before we
> > merge the branch, of course.
> >
> > Another reason is that there are too many macOS users who get
> confused
> > when they install an application that's not in the app store, and we
> > cannot publish GPL software in the app store. I wish I could
> just shrug
> > that off, and I've done that until 3.1, but it's getting quite a
> > support burden.
> >
> > I haven't found a script yet that will figure out who owns copyright
> > on the original GPL'ed krita code only -- running things like
> git fame
> > only works on the whole repo, most of which is LGPL already...
> >
> > --
> > Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Wolthera
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Ok for me too, even If I dislike Apple policy on this subject.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 05. 01. 17 Ã 18:51, Wolthera a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN80MtF5DbMdtudifK49G3cKaRG9R2DTk5CqtC=46JZdK8gsoA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>LGPL's big thing is the linking stuff, right?<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
Yeah, this is fine by me.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Alvin
Wong <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alvinhochun+krita@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">alvinhochun+krita@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Boud,<br>
<br>
I'm fine with relicensing my few lines of contributions to
LGPL.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Alvin<br>
<br>
P.S. Please note that my commit email address doesn't have
`+krita` in<br>
it in case if you're checking the commit log.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
2017-01-05 17:13 GMT+08:00 Boudewijn Rempt <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org"><a \
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" \
href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org">boud@valdyas.org</a></a>>:<br> > Hi,<br>
><br>
> Umpteenth draft of this mail, but I think we should
consider relicensing<br>
> the GPL code in Krita to LGPL.<br>
><br>
> One reason is that now that Krita is on its own,
the mix of LGPL library<br>
> code inherited from koffice/calligra and GPL
library code inherited from<br>
> Krita makes it hard to move code around; like we
just did in the svg<br>
> branch, creating the kritacommand library from code
from krita/image<br>
> and libs/kundo2. That code needs to be relicensed
to LGPL before we<br>
> merge the branch, of course.<br>
><br>
> Another reason is that there are too many macOS
users who get confused<br>
> when they install an application that's not in the
app store, and we<br>
> cannot publish GPL software in the app store. I
wish I could just shrug<br>
> that off, and I've done that until 3.1, but it's
getting quite a<br>
> support burden.<br>
><br>
> I haven't found a script yet that will figure out
who owns copyright<br>
> on the original GPL'ed krita code only -- running
things like git fame<br>
> only works on the whole repo, most of which is LGPL
already...<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Boudewijn Rempt | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.krita.org" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.krita.org</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.valdyas.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="http://www.valdyas.org">http://www.valdyas.org</a></a><br> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Wolthera</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic