On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Sebastian Kügler <se...@kde.org> wrote: > On Friday, February 14, 2014 16:02:03 Laszlo Papp wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jonathan Riddell <j...@jriddell.org> wrote: >> > I've made some proposed changes to the KDE Licensing Policy >> > >> > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft >> > >> > Most significant is the inclusion of GPL 3+ as an option in response >> > to a request by GCompris and a desire voiced by a few people not to >> > treat it as an exception. >> > >> > Our current policy is designed to allow maxium code reuse around KDE >> > and beyond, allowing GPL 3+ would mean some code could not be reused >> > in GPL 2+ code without a relicence, but as pointed out this problem >> > already happens when moving GPL 2 code to platform. The policy has >> > nothing to do with whether GPL 2 or 3 is more or less commercially >> > acceptable. Given a blank sheet I'd pick GPL 3 every time as it >> > prevents DRM lock-in and patent abuse. >> >> Would it be possible to incorporate this important information in some >> way into the infrastructure? I think it would be useful when deciding >> about licenses. I believe the more we can do for aiding the selection >> for our developers, the better. > > Isn't this what the commit hooks already do?
As far as I know, they might warn, but will not indicate the difference e.g. between GPLv2 and GPLv3. _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community