Am 06.09.2015 19:43, schrieb Peter Kelly:
On 6 Sep 2015, at 11:22 pm, Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>
wrote:
Am 06.09.2015 04:22, schrieb Dave Fisher: [...]
Also Apache needs a release policy for binaries that would allow
the best UX/UI API for the platform to be used even if it is GPL.
If you have subscribed to legal-discuss the last few months you
know why that discussion was impossible. If that can be worked
out then at least it would help other projects.
can you explain the case a bit? Do you link statically? What is the
license?
We wanted to use Qt, the open source version of which is LGPL. All
other suitable candidates we could find were similar; GTK is LGPL,
and wxWidgets has a license that is very close to LGPL. We also
needed to use WebKit, regardless of the toolkit involved, and that is
(mostly I think) LGPL also.
I would have thought about wxWidgets as well... true the license is
basically LGPL, but "works in binary form may be distributed on the
user's own terms" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WxWidgets#License). I
would assume that allows the binary to be Apache Licensed for example.
But Webkit blows it up again, yes.
There was some debate about whether or not it was ok to write an
application which used Qt, though we did not propose including any of
the actual Qt source code in the release artefacts. It would be used
as an external library, dynamically linked, similar to how many
programs use glibc.
my position on this is, it is ok as long as qt is not part of the
binary, since then it has to be part of the system... And I think you
mean this as well. Though, I doubt that works for QT under windows. GTK+
maybe, once the windows runtime becomes available again.
An assertion was made in the discussion that if we cannot develop our
app without using Qt, it should not be part of the project (I assume
this same argument would have been made if we had chosen one of the
others above). Given that this app was a major component (though by
no means all) of what we planned to do, it seemed that if that
argument was valid (and I don’t think it was, but I’m still not
sure), we would have to do so outside of ASF.
I think it would be bad to have the UI and the functionality separate -
even if the UI part would be so much bigger. But that would allow other
applications to use it as library independent of the editor. But given,
that you are supposed to build a community and that the community most
likely will want to use the editor in the beginning... I find that
decision reasonable. Is licensing the project under LGPL an option?
Afaik apache does not like that very much, but could allow it.
There were numerous other factors involved with our design to resign,
mostly involving personal disputes among PPMC members which I won’t
get into here out of respect for all involved. But the discussion
about licensing and implications for the project was one of the
factors, and certainly caused a division in the community.
Personal disputes will happen, just belongs to life.... imho. For me the
licensing problem would be enough to move away from apache in your
case... if LPGPL is not option for the project.
[...]
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
