[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: 2017-01-07 21:01:18
Message-ID: ab6df555-7d66-05d5-1eb5-e8f94fc8799b () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Blender and Natron are under a GPL license but there are comercial
plugins for both of them. (And even commercial "forks" of blender, or at
least builds of blenders that are sold with a commercial closed
software, like vray). So I don't think relicensing under lgpl will
change much on this case. Tell me if i'm wrong ???
Le 07. 01. 17 à 21:37, Sven Langkamp a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Boudewijn Rempt <boud@valdyas.org
> <mailto: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 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.
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Blender and Natron are under a GPL license but there are
comercial plugins for both of them. (And even commercial "forks"
of blender, or at least builds of blenders that are sold with a
commercial closed software, like vray). So I don't think
relicensing under lgpl will change much on this case. Tell me if
i'm wrong ???</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 07. 01. 17 à 21:37, Sven Langkamp a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAmsBfkAhrpnrJnKCAodQ69uDWSJkWNG=i1GrygqQn=vLpgzXw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:13 AM,
Boudewijn Rempt <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" \
href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org">boud@valdyas.org</a></a>></span> wrote:<br> \
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px \
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">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>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
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>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is somewhat of a grey area. At least the FSF
thinks that even the LGPL isn't compatible with the App
Store.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/left-wondering-why-vlc-relicensed-some-code- \
to-lgpl">https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/left-wondering-why-vlc-relicensed-some-code-to-lgpl</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Beside that I don't like that Apple indirectly dictates
our licensing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
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>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm remain sceptical about this for now.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<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 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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</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