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

List:       kde-release-team
Subject:    Re: kdepimlibs Licensing
From:       Tom Albers <tomalbers () kde ! nl>
Date:       2008-11-19 10:25:45
Message-ID: 1803015.kRrBbTQh94 () kde ! nl
[Download RAW message or body]

Op woensdag 19 november 2008 11:14 schreef u:
> mailody can depend on kdepim, given that it will ultimatively merge or move 
> into kdepim (or so I heard).

Where did you hear that? 

Mailody can not depend on kdepim and will not move into kdepim.

> besides the licensing issue (where I think the pragmatic solution is not a 
> good idea, I would rather create a different toplevel module for that or 
> completely rip out code that cannot be relicensed),

You miss the point that there is nobody that wishes to go ahead with the relicensing \
to LGPL. Why would *we* make an effort to make a library that can be used in closed \
source applications?  If someone wants to make such an application, they have to \
invest time in the relicensing. It is a bit weird that for libs we require at least \
two applications, but we need to have it relicensened to LGPL because there might \
come a closed source application in the future that wants to use it. GPL is fine for \
all our needs and for some libraries it can even give the open source world an \
competitive advantage. 

> I would object unless BC/API has been reviewed

We have extensive API reviews during the meetings, as soon as it is a lib we review \
it and make adjustments. Good example is the recent move from the dictionarycombobox \
to kdelibs, we decided that the complete api was a mess and rewritten the whole think \
to make sense again. 

(I.o.w.: you are right, we need to review the apis, as usual).

Toma



_______________________________________________
release-team mailing list
release-team@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team


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