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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: kdepim/konsolekalendar [POSSIBLY UNSAFE]
From:       Kevin Forge <forge () myrealbox ! com>
Date:       2004-03-23 16:18:11
Message-ID: 40606343.4000905 () myrealbox ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

The GPL + QT exception license, used by a few bits in KDE was created at 
a time prior to the QPL.
Back then you could look at the source of QT but not modify it which 
made that license not
GPL Compatible.  The advent of the QPL solved that practical problem 
(despite what several
none/lawyers said). 

Latter on QT received a 3rd license.  The GPL, That makes it possible to 
write apps linked against QT
and license them as GPL (No special exemptions of any kind since GPL -> 
GPL is a perfect match)
or to license them as LGPL, BSD, Artistic, X11 etc... and link them 
against the same QT which in
that case uses the QPL license.

In short if your license appears on  
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
under
GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses
or
GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses

you can license your software that way and link it against QT and KDE 
with no worries.


Bo Thorsen wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Sorry for jeopardy-quoting here, but the thread is quite long and my 
>comment is fairly generic.
>
>When licensing an application with Qt, there are two choices you can take:
>
>- - LGPL
>- - GPL + Qt exception
>
>The first one makes sense if we later make the application be a part and 
>want to allow the part to be usable in commercial applications. The vim 
>part could be a good example of this. Or if the app is split in a library 
>and an application - like IMHO all lowlevel tools should have been long 
>time ago.
>
>But both licenses solve the problem, so which one you choose for an 
>application is up to you. GPL/Qt gives the normal GPL protection. LGPL 
>has more doors open - both for us and for others.
>
>Personally I don't care at all who uses the software I write. I don't have 
>that scare of commercial companies using the stuff - basically because 
>they would always then be behind us instead of in front of us.
>
>'Nuff said. Choose your poison.
>
>Bo.
>
>On Tuesday 23 March 2004 01:37, Allen Winter wrote:
>  
>
>>On Monday 22 March 2004 06:52 pm, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I'm cc'ing Allen because he seems to be another copyright holder of
>>>konsolekalendar and I think he needs to be involved in this
>>>discussion.
>>>
>>>On Monday 22 March 2004 10:04, Adriaan de Groot wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>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).
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>konsolekalendar was GPL-licensed. The QPL wasn't involved at all.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>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;).
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>konsolekalendar was GPL-licensed. So everyone had equal rights.
>>>Changing the license to LGPL didn't change anything in this respect.
>>>Basically the only difference between LGPL and GPL is that
>>>proprietary/closed-source applications are allowed to link to
>>>LGPL-licensed libraries but not to GPL-licensed libraries. But since
>>>konsolekalendar isn't a library there's no difference between GPL or
>>>LGPL (apart from the fact that a license which was written for
>>>libraries isn't really suitable for a program).
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>i _REALLY_
>>>>>know LGPL is for libraries and but it's more open and i can use
>>>>>it..
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>More open than what? Than the GPL? That's correct (at least for
>>>libraries). LGPL is more open because it allows big companies to use
>>>an LGPL-licensed library in a proprietary application without giving
>>>anything back to the community. If, on the other hand, companies
>>>wanted to use a GPL-licensed library then they would have to release
>>>their applications under a GPL-compatible Free Software license. So
>>>in fact the GPL is much better for most libraries than the LGPL
>>>because GPL-licensed libraries can't be used by big companies without
>>>giving anything back to the community while LGPL-licensed libraries
>>>can be used this way. See also:
>>>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>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..
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>There's nothing wrong with keeping the GPL.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Exactly. It was just a simple question. I just wanted to know your
>>>motivation for changing the license. Don't get me wrong, but I do
>>>have the impression that you are a bit confused about the whole
>>>license issue. We'll happily answer all your questions with regard to
>>>licensing.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Ingo
>>>      
>>>
>>Thanks for including me.  Yes, I am a copyright holder on
>>konsolekalendar.
>>
>>A couple points:
>> - License change only came up because Bo asked due to the "only
>>commercial Qt available in Windows" problem.
>> - We asked Bo if LGPL was better for his purposes and he said yes,
>>IIRC. - So, that's we we changed to LGPL.  Else, we wouldn't have
>>bothered. - If LGPL won't help matters, then Tuukka and I are willing
>>to change to Artistic license if that solves things
>> - All in all, we'd rather stick with GPL.  But we also want to
>>accomodate the Windows issue. - Tuukka has his problems with the GPL+Qt
>>exception license (as korganizer has) and I won't argue with his
>>reasons.  I don't have a problem with GPL+Qt exception, but Tuukka has
>>his reasons and I don't think we should try to convince him otherwise.
>>
>>In conclusion, if Artistic license will help Bo's cause, then we are
>>willing to go that way. Else, we stick with GPL.
>>
>>... On second thought...  the more I think about things... the more I
>>want to stay with GPL. Unless Tuukka changes his mind about the Qt
>>exception, then the license should stay pure GPL.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Allen
>>    
>>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQFAX+QEmT99lwfUS5IRAnT9AJwNDwwJ59NtqGO20ZUcJWsKgtzJ8ACgjUPg
>oGi1lS9X0iWNvVWOiMAG7tQ=
>=9gPz
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>_______________________________________________
>Kde-licensing mailing list
>Kde-licensing@kde.org
>https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing
>
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
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]