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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Emf libray
From:       Inge Wallin <inge () lysator ! liu ! se>
Date:       2009-10-27 12:26:28
Message-ID: 200910271326.28754.inge () lysator ! liu ! se
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 26 October 2009 11:38:25 Inge Wallin wrote:

> A lot has been said about this, and I think it's time to wrap up.  Is
>  anybody unhappy with the following summary?
> 
> 1. mostly yes, at least it is ok.
> 2. qemf is perhaps not such a good name.  koemf is better, or even libemf.
> 3. For now, let's keep it out of libs/ and put it under the shape that uses
>  it instead.  It can always be moved if there are more users.
> 
> Regarding the shape, we all agree that a general vector shape is better,
>  but a good enough start is a dedicated EMF shape. It can be generalized
>  later.

One more point to bring up.  Thomas wrote in another mail:

> There is one more pressing point that I'd like to bring up; we keep wv2
> outside of KOffice tarballs because the software freedom lawcenter put
> out an advisory on the license under which the file formats can be used.
> The EMF file format is licensed under the same license, so the decision
> made a long time ago should apply to this new code too, I don't see any
> reason why it should not apply, do you?

This is a tricky issue.  I looked into it and found this page: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Open_Specification_Promise

It's somewhat complicated, but it seems that GPL2 is covered and there may be 
some insecurities about GPL3.  We have GPL2+, which means that our users can 
relicense code from us with GPL3 or higher.  However then it is he/she that 
makes that decision, not we.

On the page it says: 

> In 2006 Mark Webbink; a lawyer and member of the board of the Software
> Freedom Law Center, and former employee of Linux vendor Red Hat; said,
> 
>     "Red Hat believes that the text of the OSP gives sufficient flexibility
>     to implement the listed specifications in software licensed under free
>     and open source licenses. We commend Microsoft's efforts to reach out to
>     representatives from the open source community and solicit their
>     feedback on this text, and Microsoft's willingness to make modifications
>     in response to our comments."[4][5]
> 
> Standards lawyer Andy Updegrove said in 2006 the Open Specification
> Promise was
> 
>    "what I consider to be a highly desirable tool for facilitating the
>    implementation of open standards, in particular where those standards are
>    of interest to the open source community."[6]

I read that as two highly knowledgeable persons giving their lawyer(!) opinion 
that it's ok.

Later on the page it talks about the Software Freedom Law Center and warns 
about incompatibilities with GPL3.  The issue is that GPL3 passes patent 
rights onto the receiver something that GPL2 doesn't talk about at all.

In summary: I think we are clear.

	-Inge
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel

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