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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: kdepim/konsolekalendar [POSSIBLY UNSAFE]
From:       Adriaan de Groot <adridg () sci ! kun ! nl>
Date:       2004-03-22 9:04:44
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.44.0403220957190.5871-100000 () wn4 ! sci ! kun ! nl
[Download RAW message or body]

If you want to talk about licensing - and get an informed opinion - go to
kde-licensing@, don't argue about it in kde-cvs@. CCing this there, and
let's continue there. (Removed Ingo from the CC).

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 illuusio@nic.fi wrote:
> I _DON_T_ like GPL/QPL abroach to give all the code and using rights for
> people who paid to trolltech (they should give money to KDE also).

This sentence doesn't make sense (grammatically). You don't like the
GPL/QPL, but it's not clear why - or why you assume that QPL would apply
to your application.

> Everyone should have that right or no-one than me;). i _REALLY_ know
> LGPL is for libraries and but it's more open and i can use it.. I would
> license my app under BSD style license if i have change but i think that
> GPL/QPL stuff makes it impossible.. So tell me what i can do if I
> _DON_T_ want to use GPL/QPL license..

Use any one of GPL, QPL, MIT, Artistic, LGPL, BSD (no advert clause) or
X11 (before the feb 2004 change) as stated in
http://developer.kde.org/policies/licensepolicy.html .


> ps. Thanks about flaming me as i assumed

You, Tukka, have a weird notion of flaming if you think Ingo's question is
a flame.

> pss. and all the KDE should be relicensed that was the main reason.

!? To what? Non-GPL?

_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]