On 05/18/2016 11:13 AM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
On 17 May 2016 at 20:48, Hugo Pereira Da Costa
<hugo.pereira.da.co...@gmail.com
<mailto:hugo.pereira.da.co...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
Architecturally, the eventual solution would be that
breeze.git becomes
layered, and routines beyond what QStyle defines are provided
by an LGPL
lib. It worked with libOxygen that is LGPL.
The reason for liboxygen was that part of Oxygen was also used
by KWin
decoration. We fixed that by moving the decorations together
with the style
into one repository.
liboxygen was also there to take care of code shared between the
style and the decoration, but internal only, no headers exported,
no so version, no abi, api stability guaranty of any kind. I have
no clue how this could be used by the external world in any way.
It is, I explained it a bit. But anyway it's FOSS so explaining was
not needed. I am not implementing frameworks or plasma so I am not
obligated to rules or habits expressed here.
Personally I think liboxygen was rather a hack and an annoyance.
based on the above, I was seeing it as a "private" library, needed
to avoid code duplication and ease maintenance between two parts
of oxygen.
As for the licensing of such a thing, no clue, but again, I never
intended it to be re-used by any other code.
Like above, do you agree it to be reused or not.
I would not agree with the library to be linked against because I do not
want to provide the guaranties that goes with it (about ABI and API
stability) or do not want to be held responsible for these to be broken.
I do agree for people copying the code around and take over these
responsibilities if they want.
I am not asking if you intend to use it, I am asking if you are
OK/open with others using the code in other FOSS code.
Especially that QStyle is
mostly just maintained. "Use QStyle and plugins" sounds
almost like "use X
"protocol instead of DWD"...
Going LGPL is a first step for this being even considered
as a task by a
KDE contributor. Without that the easiest thing is to work
downstream
forking^w copying the design and such.
The request is about the freedom to use of the
code from of the breeze
style in LGPL code freely opening freedom for
experimentation and
progress.
The design (by VDG) is free to use (LGPL I think),
why wouldn't the
implementation be free-to-link?
I repeat again: I object to a relicense of code I have
written to GPL in
the
case of Breeze and Oxygen.
I see much of oxygen
is BSD-like and LGPL of the change happened in with the
Breeze.
I have here a file open oxygenstyleplugin.cpp which is
licensed as GPL v2+.
Thus the whole thing is licensed GPLv2+. Why the code is
inconsistent licensed
I do not know.
Probably me copying code around without caring much. I would agree
to re-license all the part I wrote to GPL v2+.
Cool but that was not my question
.
I know. And I did not agree to relicense to LGPL. I did agree with
Martin about it being licenced GPL and agree to relicense the code I
wrote to GPL.
I am ok with the compile code being used as a plugin, and not to be
linked against (because of the same responsibilities I do not want to
take). I am ok with bits of code being copied and reused.
I asked to relicense to LGPL so I don't need to reimplement the same
bits of style for non-QStyle code. Or reuse artwork from GTK+.
best,
Hugo
Again what's wrong for you with libOxygen that is LGPL?
liboxygen is not lgpl licensed. Look for example at
liboxygen/liboxygen.h. It
has a GPLv2+ header, thus is GPLv2+
PS: If our tech was HTML and Qt Quick only, our
styles would be LGPL
clearly as these would be actually scripts and
graphic/style files. Why
would we have inferior situation just because we
happen to use
compilers?
I don't see what that has to do with it.
It means that styles for HTML and Qt Quick _and_ GTK+
Breze style have
freedoms that Breeze actually lack just because the
licensing choice. And
that may or may not be a missed opportunity.
I just checked the folder qtquickcontrols - those files are
unfortunately not
licensed at all. This is clearly wrong.
Concerning GTK+ Breeze style: the COPYING.lib says it's LGPL.
So you also
cannot just take parts of it. Though the individual files are
lacking a
copyright header.
Cheers
Martin
--
regards, Jaroslaw Staniek
KDE:
: A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers,
translators
: and facilitators committed to Free Software development - http://kde.org
Calligra Suite:
: A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org
Kexi:
: A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi
Qt Certified Specialist:
: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek
_______________________________________________
Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
