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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Updated Licence Draft
From:       Jonathan Riddell <jr () jriddell ! org>
Date:       2007-11-23 0:10:51
Message-ID: 20071123001051.GJ17824 () muse ! 19inch ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 November 2007 19:39:20 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > We're updating the licence policy for KDE to obsolete old licences,
> > ensure GPL 3 compatibility and fill in some gaps.
> >
> > Please take a look at it and comment on the kde-licencing list.
> >
> > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
> 
> To make clear that we are not allowing to license code under only a single of 
> the listed licenses, but only under certain combinations I would suggest to 
> change "must be licensed under the terms of any of the following licenses" 
> to "must be licensed under one of the following terms".
> 
> I would also suggest to add an "or" for the v2,v3 multiple licensing: "LGPL 
> version 2.1 or version 3 or later versions approved by the KDE e.V." That 
> makes it a bit clearer to me that there is a choice between all options.
> 
> There are several references to "one of the above licenses". Wouldn't it be 
> better to explicitly reference the section and don't refer to an individual 
> license, but to a term of a combination of licenses? So the wording would be 
> like: "one of the terms listed in section 3 or 5".
>
> The icon text is also saying "LGPL v3 *and* later versions approved by the KDE 
> e.V." At other places we use "or" instead of "and". Shouldn't we use "or" 
> here as well?

Good suggestions, I've applied them to the text.

> Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without the KDE e.V. 
> approved license choice? I guess there are people who aren't willing to 
> license their code under a license they can't know yet.

One of the major features of thus update is to make it future proof so
we don't end up with the same problems as we currently have again.

> Is there no problem with licensing icons under LGPL 3 and later only without a 
> LGPL v2 option? Isn't there a conflict when linking LGPL 3 icons with GPL 2 
> only code?

I don't know of anywhere that we link icons to code. .ui files no
longer contain embedded images.

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
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]