[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-kimageshop
Subject: Re: Relicensing Krita as LGPLv2+
From: Wolthera <griffinvalley () gmail ! com>
Date: 2017-01-08 14:01:57
Message-ID: CAN80MtGVfj13VESdDK1M3CmbcebAoNep-eLK2isHXnRnZnm5xg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Well, kickstarter might be a bit overkill, don't forget that kickstarter is
quite intense for us, and signing needs to happen every year.
Krita-Package-Signing patreon on the other hand :P
But this isn't quite an issue just yet.
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Paragon <french.paragon@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we need to pay to get the krita package signed on Mac Os we may do
> specific kickstarters to get the money we need to do so, no ?
>
> This would make some mac users understand what it mean to get theirs
> packages from the app-store, or support Apple software distribution
> philosophy.
>
> (it would also be possible to put it in the annual kickstarter budget, but
> I think we miss the educational advantages of running a campaign just for
> that, and linux and windows users would maybe dislike paying for Apple
> philosophy).
>
>
> Le 08. 01. 17 à 01:58, Wolthera a écrit :
>
> These situations use an amazingly untested construction where there's a
> glue library that can link to GPL without having the main plugin be forced
> to follow GPL. The same can be said of MuseScore and VLC.
>
> Sven's concern is quite valid though. I think that we kind of need to
> wonder whether questions about the appstore shouldn't just be forwarded to
> the mailing list so that boud shouldn't have to answer them, especially
> because I haven't come across such questions myself, meaning that there's a
> significant chunk of people who do know how to use it on OSX. The problem
> being that people who don't are about computer literate enough to mail the
> foundation email but not use the 20 other places they could ask about this.
> For OSX, the only thing I am really worried about is signing of OSX
> packages, because if that becomes mandatory we might as well give up.
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Paragon <french.paragon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Wolthera
>
>
>
--
Wolthera
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div>Well, kickstarter might be a bit overkill, don't forget that \
kickstarter is quite intense for us, and signing needs to happen every year. \
Krita-Package-Signing patreon on the other hand :P<br></div>But this isn't quite \
an issue just yet.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On \
Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Paragon <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:french.paragon@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">french.paragon@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
If we need to pay to get the krita package signed on Mac Os we may
do specific kickstarters to get the money we need to do so, no ?<br>
<br>
This would make some mac users understand what it mean to get theirs
packages from the app-store, or support Apple software distribution
philosophy. <br>
<br>
(it would also be possible to put it in the annual kickstarter
budget, but I think we miss the educational advantages of running a
campaign just for that, and linux and windows users would maybe
dislike paying for Apple philosophy).<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="m_8019756279750967108moz-cite-prefix">Le 08. 01. 17 Ã 01:58, \
Wolthera a écrit :<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>These situations use an amazingly untested construction
where there's a glue library that can link to GPL without
having the main plugin be forced to follow GPL. The same can
be said of MuseScore and VLC.<br>
<br>
</div>
Sven's concern is quite valid though. I think that we kind of
need to wonder whether questions about the appstore shouldn't
just be forwarded to the mailing list so that boud shouldn't
have to answer them, especially because I haven't come across
such questions myself, meaning that there's a significant chunk
of people who do know how to use it on OSX. The problem being
that people who don't are about computer literate enough to mail
the foundation email but not use the 20 other places they could
ask about this. For OSX, the only thing I am really worried
about is signing of OSX packages, because if that becomes
mandatory we might as well give up.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 10:01 PM,
Paragon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:french.paragon@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">french.paragon@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px \
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div 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="m_8019756279750967108m_2302276371515168143moz-cite-prefix">Le \
07. 01. 17 à 21:37, Sven Langkamp a écrit :<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="m_8019756279750967108h5">
<blockquote 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 \
class="m_8019756279750967108m_2302276371515168143moz-txt-link-abbreviated" \
href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org" target="_blank"></a><a \
class="m_8019756279750967108moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org" \
target="_blank">boud@valdyas.org</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 \
href="https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/left-wondering-why-vlc-relicensed-some-code-to-lgpl" \
target="_blank">https://www.fsf.org/blogs/lice<wbr>nsing/left-wondering-why-vlc-<wbr>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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div class="m_8019756279750967108gmail_signature" \
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Wolthera</div> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" \
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Wolthera</div> </div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic