From kde-kimageshop Sat Jan 07 20:37:24 2017 From: Sven Langkamp Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2017 20:37:24 +0000 To: kde-kimageshop Subject: Re: Relicensing Krita as LGPLv2+ Message-Id: X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-kimageshop&m=148382146009389 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--f403045defd226af950545871a94" --f403045defd226af950545871a94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > 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. > We could go to GPL for the complete repository and never have to relicense anything again. It also doesn't happen that often that files need to be moved across libaries and I have done some relicensing for this in the past. > 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. > This is somewhat of a grey area. At least the FSF thinks that even the LGPL isn't compatible with the App Store. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/left-wondering-why-vlc-relicensed-some-code-to-lgpl VLC did the same relicensing and is in the App Store, so it works for now. But I wouldn't bet on that for the future. Beside that I don't like that Apple indirectly dictates our licensing. 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... > I'm remain sceptical about this for now. There is another issue that should be considered. Due to the heavy use of plugins in Krita it would become very easy to extend Krita with closed-source plugins. Pratically is would be possible to make a close-source version on top of the existing code. This may sound hypothetical, but we had this in the past were the license prevented a commercial fork. Do we allow that? I think that's something that should at least be considered. --f403045defd226af950545871a94 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Boudewijn Rempt <boud@valdyas.org> wrote:
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.

We could g= o to GPL for the complete repository and never have to relicense anything a= gain. It also doesn't happen that often that files need to be moved acr= oss libaries and I have done some relicensing for this in the past.
=C2=A0
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.

This is somewhat of a g= rey area. At least the FSF thinks that even the LGPL isn't compatible w= ith the App Store.


VLC did the same relicensing and is= in the App Store, so it works for now. But I wouldn't bet on that for = the future.

Beside that I don't like that Appl= e indirectly dictates our licensing.

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<= br> only works on the whole repo, most of which is LGPL already...

I'm remain sceptical about this for now.
<= div>
There is another issue that should be considered. Due to= the heavy use of plugins in Krita it would become very easy to extend Krit= a with closed-source plugins. Pratically is would be possible to make a clo= se-source version on top of the existing code. This may sound hypothetical,= but we had this in the past were the license prevented a commercial fork. = Do we allow that? I think that's something that should at least be cons= idered.

--f403045defd226af950545871a94--