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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Updated Licence Draft
From:       Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher () kde ! org>
Date:       2007-11-23 1:09:28
Message-ID: 200711230209.28235.schumacher () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 23 November 2007 01:10:51 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>
> > 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.

Yes, but aren't there a number of contributors who still don't want to have 
the blanket "or later" statement, although they agree to license under GPL 3? 
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing seems to indicate that.

> > 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.

What about Qt resource files?

-- 
Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher@kde.org>
_______________________________________________
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]