On Monday, June 6, 2016 1:29:51 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > On 6 June 2016 at 13:04, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Monday, June 6, 2016 12:17:11 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > > > On 30 May 2016 at 17:11, Michael Pyne <mp...@kde.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 14:42:43 Martin Graesslin wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 11:24:52 PM CEST Michael Pyne wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 14:53:54 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > > > > > > > All in all, If nobody just noted an issue with the licensing > > > > above > > > > > > maybe > > > > > > > > > > > nobody tried to place/distribute a non-GPL software on top of > > > > > > > Plasma? > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > would be the worst news of all to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please speak up someone else because it's a matter of KDE, not > > > > just > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > single desktop shell. Maybe some voting fits here. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've only been able to keep track of the margins of the thread but > > > > I > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > admit that it seems surprising that we would use code licensing as > > > > a > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > > > to either enforce the exclusiveness of Plasma's artwork above and > > > > > > > > beyond > > > > > > > > > > the existing license for the artwork, or to prevent applications > > > > > > > > running > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > KDE frameworks (but outside of Plasma) from supplying an > > > > alternative > > > > > > > > KDE-authored QStyle. > > > > > > > > > > heh, that's certainly not the case here. This is not trying to force > > > > our > > > > > > > style to be only used in Plasma. That would be a ridiculous stance > > > > from > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > side. > > > > > > > > > > I want to have my code stay GPL. I don't think that the breeze code > > > > > > > > needs to > > > > > > > > > be licenced in a way that it can be copied into 3rd party > > > > applications. > > > > > > > That's all. It has nothing to do with enforcing anything, it's just > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t > > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > > actual implementation should stay GPL in my opinion. > > > > > > > > Alright, my apologies for misunderstanding and then misrepresenting > > > > your > > > > > > position. Certainly > > > > > > > > code licensing is every developer's choice to make, and > > > > I'm not sure of better ways than what you're doing to avoid > > > > third-party > > > > apps > > > > from easily cloning the code behind the style (even if it means more > > > > difficulty for non-GPL KDE apps outside of Plasma). > > > > > > > > > Please let me repeat (and cover this and any potential similar cases in > > > the future): this blocking avoids *any* reuse for non-GPL code no matter > > > > if > > > > > via copying or linking (either via private APIs, eventually > > > framework-ify > > > that _if_ it pays off). It's hard to assume Martin did not > > > > read/understand > > > > > my explanation of the use cases and the technicals. > > > > > > Since when LGPL (versus GPL) decrease code reuse? Conversely, GPL > > > means > > > less chance for collaborating on shared code. > > > > If you really want to be able to reuse the code as one wishes it needs to > > be > > MIT/BSD licensed. Otherwise it's just working for your personal use case > > that > > your LGPL based application (or whatever) can use it. > > > > Making the code LGPL won't fix the "problem" of not reusing the code. I'm > > not > > open to discuss changing the licence away from GPL due to that. LGPL won't > > solve the problem and BSD style license I'm not comfortable with. > > > > If the code were a library (which it isn't) LGPL could be an option. But > > it > > isn't and nobody wants to turn it into a library. It's a mood point. > > > > Sorry to having to deny your relicence request. I want my code > > contributions > > to be GPL by default, LGPL is for me already a hard exception which must > > have > > strong understandable reasons (like a library one wants to use, which > > breeze > > isn't). > > > > Btw. I'm very unhappy with the level of pressure you are exposing here by > > bringing it up again and again. > > I am done with that then -- I was one who also worked a bit on debugging > the lib code, like many others do. > > I'd be happy to see the "defaulting to GPL" rules specified officially by > some document by KDE, this helps to make decision about contributing.
Please check: https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy I think what I express is fully compatible with the licensing policy. Btw. I didn't choose the licence for Breeze. Cheers Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel