Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
Jonathan Riddell ha scritto:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:04:47PM +0100, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> Added:
>> "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be
>> licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0
>> International."
>> Rationale: we have no policy for wikis but they are very important to
>> us especially with wikitoLearn so we should add one. Our wikis are
>> currently CC 3.0+FDL but we should consider moving to CC 4.0 (CC
>> includes an or later so there's no difficultly in doing this). FDL is
>> unmaintained and not much used so we can drop this.
>
> Wikipedia are also looking to move to CC 4.0
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
It will be still a dual license:
You agree to the following licensing requirements:
[...]
Text to which you hold the copyright: When you submit text to which you
hold the copyright, you agree to license it under:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License ("CC
BY-SA 4.0"), and
GNU Free Documentation License ("GFDL") (unversioned, with no
invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
(Re-users may comply with either license or both.) The only exception is
if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case,
you agree to license any text you contribute under that particular license.
Please note that these licenses do allow commercial uses of your
contributions, as long as such uses are compliant with the terms. Where you
own Sui Generis Database Rights covered by CC BY-SA 4.0, you waive these
rights. As an example, this means facts you contribute to the projects may be
reused freely without attribution.
--
Luigi
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:04:47PM +0100, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > Added: > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 > International." > Rationale: we have no policy for wikis but they are very important to > us especially with wikitoLearn so we should add one. Our wikis are > currently CC 3.0+FDL but we should consider moving to CC 4.0 (CC > includes an or later so there's no difficultly in doing this). FDL is > unmaintained and not much used so we can drop this. Wikipedia are also looking to move to CC 4.0 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0 Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
El dijous, 29 de setembre de 2016, a les 9:32:00 CEST, Jonathan Riddell va escriure: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:28:37PM +0200, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Have you contacted the people that actually write docs if they are happy > > with you imposing a change on the docs they write? > > > > CC'ing them just in case they did not see it. > > I'm not imposing :( > > It's a suggested change we're discussing. You're totally right, i was totally out of line. Please accept my apologies. Albert > > Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
I've changed the recommended version of the MIT licence text in the draft to the MIT Modern Style with sublicense. This is to put it in line with OSI and Linux Foundation SPDX form. https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies%2FLicensing_Policy%2FDraft&type=revision&diff=74184&oldid=74120 variations https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT linux foundation project https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html This is a proposal for discussion and isn't an imposition. Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:28:37PM +0200, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > Have you contacted the people that actually write docs if they are happy with > you imposing a change on the docs they write? > > CC'ing them just in case they did not see it. I'm not imposing :( It's a suggested change we're discussing. Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
El dimarts, 20 de setembre de 2016, a les 18:04:47 CEST, Jonathan Riddell va escriure: > Changed: > "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons > Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International" > Rationale: Currently we use GNU FDL but that licence is unmaintained, > little used, problematic due to association with non-free options and > incompatible with the GPL. CC-BY-SA 4 is one way compatible with the > GPL (code can be copied from docs to GPL code). So I suggest moving > new docs to CC. Have you contacted the people that actually write docs if they are happy with you imposing a change on the docs they write? CC'ing them just in case they did not see it. Cheers, Albert
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
El dimarts, 20 de setembre de 2016, a les 18:04:47 CEST, Jonathan Riddell va escriure: > It's time for a new updates to the KDE Licensing Policy kde-licens...@kde.org feels sad for not getting any news about this. Cheers, Albert
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 06:52:13PM +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Still, as I mentioned, it would introduced problems if we move documentation > forth and back from wikis to other formats, and also with mixing content from > older documentation. It would allow sharing content from wikis. Currently this isn't possible. The downside is content can't be shared with older KDE documentation, my feeling is this is less likely to happen. Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On 23 September 2016 at 18:52, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Still, as I mentioned, it would introduced problems if we move documentation > forth and back from wikis to other formats, and also with mixing content from > older documentation. I still don't buy the "cumbersome" argument, I don't > think we use it the controversial parts like invariant section etc - do we? > Trying to to relicense the existing documentation from FDL to FDL+CC as a > start would be the best thing, but I think it would be complicated. So yeah, FDL is impractical as it requires the full copy of the license to be printed alongside with every printed copy of the material covered by it. ...and doesn't really offer any more benefits I am aware of... Bye, -Riccardo -- Pace Peace Paix Paz Frieden Pax Pokój Friður Fred Béke 和平 Hasiti Lapé Hetep Malu Mир Wolakota Santiphap Irini Peoch שלום Shanti Vrede Baris Rój Mír Taika Rongo Sulh Mir Py'guapy 평화
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Friday, 23 September 2016 16:46:22 CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 06:41:57PM +0200, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On 20 September 2016 at 19:04, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > > Added: > > > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be > > > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 > > > International." > > > Rationale: we have no policy for wikis but they are very important to > > > us especially with wikitoLearn so we should add one. Our wikis are > > > currently CC 3.0+FDL but we should consider moving to CC 4.0 (CC > > > includes an or later so there's no difficultly in doing this). FDL is > > > unmaintained and not much used so we can drop this. > > > > WikiToLearn is currently dual licensing CC-BY-SA 3.0 / GNU FDL and > > we're considering just dropping FDL as it is quite cumbersome and we > > don't really use it anyways. > > Right, that's why I suggest dropping FDL usage across all wikis and new > docs. Still, as I mentioned, it would introduced problems if we move documentation forth and back from wikis to other formats, and also with mixing content from older documentation. I still don't buy the "cumbersome" argument, I don't think we use it the controversial parts like invariant section etc - do we? Trying to to relicense the existing documentation from FDL to FDL+CC as a start would be the best thing, but I think it would be complicated. -- Luigi
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 06:41:57PM +0200, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote: > Hi all, > > On 20 September 2016 at 19:04, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > Added: > > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be > > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 > > International." > > Rationale: we have no policy for wikis but they are very important to > > us especially with wikitoLearn so we should add one. Our wikis are > > currently CC 3.0+FDL but we should consider moving to CC 4.0 (CC > > includes an or later so there's no difficultly in doing this). FDL is > > unmaintained and not much used so we can drop this. > > WikiToLearn is currently dual licensing CC-BY-SA 3.0 / GNU FDL and > we're considering just dropping FDL as it is quite cumbersome and we > don't really use it anyways. Right, that's why I suggest dropping FDL usage across all wikis and new docs. > We would need to keep BY-SA, but I am unaware of any particular > difference between 3.0 and 4.0. We can of course evaluate only > backward compatible changes, and we need to be backward compatible > with 3.0 for a long time due to the usage of Wikimedia Commons content > (still mostly 3.0). 4.0 just clarifies some bits and makes it more international. It has the additional advantage that content can be relicenced as LGPL 3, usful for code examples. CC 3 has an "or later" clause so content from wikimedia commons can be moved to a CC 4 licenced wiki/ Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
Hi all, On 20 September 2016 at 19:04, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > Added: > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 > International." > Rationale: we have no policy for wikis but they are very important to > us especially with wikitoLearn so we should add one. Our wikis are > currently CC 3.0+FDL but we should consider moving to CC 4.0 (CC > includes an or later so there's no difficultly in doing this). FDL is > unmaintained and not much used so we can drop this. WikiToLearn is currently dual licensing CC-BY-SA 3.0 / GNU FDL and we're considering just dropping FDL as it is quite cumbersome and we don't really use it anyways. We would need to keep BY-SA, but I am unaware of any particular difference between 3.0 and 4.0. We can of course evaluate only backward compatible changes, and we need to be backward compatible with 3.0 for a long time due to the usage of Wikimedia Commons content (still mostly 3.0). Bye, -Riccardo -- Pace Peace Paix Paz Frieden Pax Pokój Friður Fred Béke 和平 Hasiti Lapé Hetep Malu Mир Wolakota Santiphap Irini Peoch שלום Shanti Vrede Baris Rój Mír Taika Rongo Sulh Mir Py'guapy 평화
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:24:13PM +0200, Sebastian Kügler wrote: > On dinsdag 20 september 2016 22:54:54 CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > > On the other hand: Is Qt still used much for web services? > > It may in the future. During QtCon, Lars Knoll mentioned to make Qt render to > web browser as one possible future goal. We also have vague plans for kwin to > do that. open365.io already does this for Libreoffice running KDE's breeze artwork. We would turn the whole archive to AGPL to prevent that sort of project proprietising KDE software but my feeling is that's not something we want to do and that it's far too big a discussion which should be had separate from this licence policy update. Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On dinsdag 20 september 2016 22:54:54 CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > On the other hand: Is Qt still used much for web services? It may in the future. During QtCon, Lars Knoll mentioned to make Qt render to web browser as one possible future goal. We also have vague plans for kwin to do that. > And if so: Are > our frameworks of much use for those? Yes. -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:19:26PM +0200, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > >2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell : > >>Added: > >>''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be > >>licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later > >>Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL > >>Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software? > >I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option. > > I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least > recommended, because for an end user a web service based on GPL > software is no better than one based on proprietary software, > because they cannot tell what software it is they're interacting > with. Therefore, the AGPL closes an important hole in FOSS web > services. > > I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense > to at least recommend AGPL for web software we produce. Added that this is recommended now to the Draft Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:11:10PM +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote: > > Rationale: we have no policy for wikis but they are very important to > > us especially with wikitoLearn so we should add one. Our wikis are > > currently CC 3.0+FDL but we should consider moving to CC 4.0 (CC > > includes an or later so there's no difficultly in doing this). FDL is > > unmaintained and not much used so we can drop this. > > I disagree with "little used". What does it mean "unmaintained"? Is the MIT > license maintained? > I still would keep the dual license. Coming back later can be complicated if > impossible. unmaintained means nobody cares about problems with it and there's no updates expected. The MIT is also unmaintained which means some people can make claims which are untrue such as Pine authors claiming you can't ship modified sources or people claiming additional restrictions can be arbitrarily added and there's nobody in authority to point out this is nonsense. > > Changed: > > "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons > > Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International" > > Rationale: Currently we use GNU FDL but that licence is unmaintained, > > little used, problematic due to association with non-free options and > > incompatible with the GPL. CC-BY-SA 4 is one way compatible with the > > GPL (code can be copied from docs to GPL code). So I suggest moving > > new docs to CC. > > See above. That would make mixing content really complicated, especially when > we move from wiki to other formats or vice-versa. So same license in both > (dual at most). It would make it possible to mix content from wikis to docs and to code. It's not currently possible to do this. It would mean old docs couldn't be mixed with new docs as a downside. Dual licencing with FDL would fix that but mean we couldn't copy from anywhere else into wikis/docs which seems limiting. Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:17:57PM +0200, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > Precision is needed here; I can easily copy some Qt project's code and even > relicense if I find it useful. I mean the BSD examples. I hope that goes without saying > If I have icons that are part of my LGPL framework, I don't want my icons to > be viral making the framework GPL and thus severly self-limited. The same goes > for icons in LGPL apps (yes, LGPL is good for modular apps that happen to be a > source of frameworks). Our icons have always been LGPL, we explicitly point out they can be used with non-GPL and non-Free works and nobody has a problem doing this. > I see a similar issue with widget styles such as Breeze; their viral GPL > affects apps, libs or plugins that choose to include them. For _nobody's_ > benefit. It's a plugin, under normal use it won't be considered a derived work of your program. Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:42:55PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2016-09-20, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > Differences: > > Removed > > "code may not be copied from Qt into KDE Platform as Qt is LGPL 2.1" > > Rationale: Qt is now LGPL 3 as well as 2 > > Qt is not LGPL2.1 in general. As long as we want to be LGPL2.1 compat, > we can't copy code from Qt. OK, I've reinstated that sentence but swapped versions to say: Note: code may not be copied from Qt into KDE Platform as Qt is LGPL 3 only which would prevent it being used under LGPL 2.1 > > Added: > > ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be > > licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later > > Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL > > Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software? > > Not a requirement. Just like we don't have copyleft requirements > anywhere. > > And it should also be specific to things on a web server. I've updated it say to 'web server'. > > Added: > > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be > > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 > > International." > > Again, I don't think we should force copyleft. I've added "or compatible licence". All our current wikis are CC-BY-SA 3.0. > > Changed: > > "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons > > Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International" > > Also here. No need to force copyleft. The previous requirement was the copyleft GNU FDL so there's no change there. I've added "or compatible licence". I've also added a note "Note: CC-BY-SA 4.0 can be converted to LGPL 3." > > Removed: > > Standalone media files CC 4.. "This does not apply to icons or > > anything which is likely to be mixed with content under our normal > > (GPL etc) licences." > > Rationale: CC 4 is compatible with GPL 3 which is the licence of > > Breeze icons anyway. > > I want my icons licensed under the same terms as my application. Even > when my application is more liberal licensed than GPLv3. It's just an option, same as before, I just changed CC 3 to CC4 which allows for more compatibility with GPLv3 licenced works. I've also removed the requiment for the files to be "standalone" as with CC4 being compatible to GPL 3 they can be mixed with code if it's a GPL3 project. https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies%2FLicensing_Policy%2FDraft&type=revision&diff=74119&oldid=74112 Jonathan
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On 20 September 2016 at 22:54, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > Certainly not. AGPL is like GPL in that sense, with the extra rule >> that you must publish the source code even if you're only giving >> access over the network and not distributing binaries. >> >> I don't think an AGPL library makes much sense though. >> >> >> ALGPL makes sense then :) >> >> > > On the other hand: Is Qt still used much for web services? And if so: Are > our frameworks of much use for those? > > There are Qt related projects that facilitate adding web service compatibility to a traditional code (example I tried recently: qhttpengine). QML is network transparent, and web services with QML has been advertised by some contributors. There were commercial endeavors such as Enginio. Many more examples I just forgot about. I don't see these things advertised that as much (and infantile) as all the "awesome" web things that so often live for one year and die, or transforming themselves without looking back or caring for compatibility and are encouraging copy-paste type of usages. When asking about local vs web computing there seems to be apparent polarization, you switch tools every time you move from one world to another. That does not need to be a rule. > I think this might be more of an edge case. I suppose that if we're doing > web stuff, it's more likely to be full applications rather than libraries. > Well I'd like to see such usage increasing. Not to create unholy mix but to truly continue the x0 years old concept of client-server computing, just differently named artifacts. I think certain already good apps and libs from FOSS would be even better and more popular if they have support use cases that require web services and if placing some of the logic on the server would be an officially supported feature. Certainly also my modest usage would increase too (two Qt projects at the moment) so the ALGPL term isn't a nonsense for me. Programming for a local workstation is simpler, maybe that's why many C++ developers start there and and also stay in where the sweet spot is. For example the last time when a contributor offered help in adding to support for Oracle server in my KDE project... it was in 2004. -- 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
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
Certainly not. AGPL is like GPL in that sense, with the extra rule that you must publish the source code even if you're only giving access over the network and not distributing binaries. I don't think an AGPL library makes much sense though. ALGPL makes sense then :) On the other hand: Is Qt still used much for web services? And if so: Are our frameworks of much use for those? I think this might be more of an edge case. I suppose that if we're doing web stuff, it's more likely to be full applications rather than libraries.
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On 20 September 2016 at 22:00, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > 2016-09-20 16:53 GMT-03:00 Jaroslaw Staniek : > > > > > > On 20 September 2016 at 21:42, Nicolás Alvarez < > nicolas.alva...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> 2016-09-20 16:30 GMT-03:00 Jaroslaw Staniek : > >> > > >> > > >> > On 20 September 2016 at 21:19, Thomas Pfeiffer < > thomas.pfeif...@kde.org> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> 2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell : > >> > >> Added: > >> ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be > >> licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later > >> Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL > >> Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server > >> software? > >> >>> > >> >>> I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least > recommended, > >> >> because for an end user a web service based on GPL software is no > >> >> better > >> >> than one based on proprietary software, because they cannot tell what > >> >> software it is they're interacting with. Therefore, the AGPL closes > an > >> >> important hole in FOSS web services. > >> >> > >> >> I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense > to > >> >> at > >> >> least recommend AGPL for web software we produce. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I see that too but also aren't we also limited here in one case: when > >> > our > >> > LGPL software is usable for services? What can we do with e.g. KF5? > Move > >> > it > >> > to AGPL and add linking exception? > >> > > >> > Sorry if that's already solved some way. > >> > >> AGPL code can use GPL and > >> LGPL libraries. > > > > > > Sure but that's not the challenge. > > Rather: can an AGPL library be dynamically linked to a proprietary > binary? > > Certainly not. AGPL is like GPL in that sense, with the extra rule > that you must publish the source code even if you're only giving > access over the network and not distributing binaries. > > I don't think an AGPL library makes much sense though. > ALGPL makes sense then :) > > -- > Nicolás > -- 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
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
2016-09-20 16:53 GMT-03:00 Jaroslaw Staniek : > > > On 20 September 2016 at 21:42, Nicolás Alvarez > wrote: >> >> 2016-09-20 16:30 GMT-03:00 Jaroslaw Staniek : >> > >> > >> > On 20 September 2016 at 21:19, Thomas Pfeiffer >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: >> >>> >> >>> 2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell : >> >> Added: >> ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be >> licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later >> Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL >> Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server >> software? >> >>> >> >>> I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option. >> >> >> >> >> >> I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least recommended, >> >> because for an end user a web service based on GPL software is no >> >> better >> >> than one based on proprietary software, because they cannot tell what >> >> software it is they're interacting with. Therefore, the AGPL closes an >> >> important hole in FOSS web services. >> >> >> >> I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense to >> >> at >> >> least recommend AGPL for web software we produce. >> >> >> > >> > I see that too but also aren't we also limited here in one case: when >> > our >> > LGPL software is usable for services? What can we do with e.g. KF5? Move >> > it >> > to AGPL and add linking exception? >> > >> > Sorry if that's already solved some way. >> >> AGPL code can use GPL and >> LGPL libraries. > > > Sure but that's not the challenge. > Rather: can an AGPL library be dynamically linked to a proprietary binary? Certainly not. AGPL is like GPL in that sense, with the extra rule that you must publish the source code even if you're only giving access over the network and not distributing binaries. I don't think an AGPL library makes much sense though. -- Nicolás
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On 20 September 2016 at 21:42, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > 2016-09-20 16:30 GMT-03:00 Jaroslaw Staniek : > > > > > > On 20 September 2016 at 21:19, Thomas Pfeiffer > > wrote: > >> > >> On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > >>> > >>> 2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell : > > Added: > ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be > licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later > Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL > Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server > software? > >>> > >>> I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option. > >> > >> > >> I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least recommended, > >> because for an end user a web service based on GPL software is no better > >> than one based on proprietary software, because they cannot tell what > >> software it is they're interacting with. Therefore, the AGPL closes an > >> important hole in FOSS web services. > >> > >> I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense to > at > >> least recommend AGPL for web software we produce. > >> > > > > I see that too but also aren't we also limited here in one case: when our > > LGPL software is usable for services? What can we do with e.g. KF5? Move > it > > to AGPL and add linking exception? > > > > Sorry if that's already solved some way. > > AGPL code can use GPL and > > LGPL libraries. > Sure but that's not the challenge. Rather: can an AGPL library be dynamically linked to a proprietary binary? In other words: When I am changing LGPL to AGPL to get the service protections, is there any way I can still have the above right LGPL is designed for? Staying with dual license (AGPL, LGPL) is not a solution because people can pick LGPL/GPL for services, e.g. grab all the KF5, grab KDE apps, fork them and create any closed services they want. Well, some would already do that and we would never know. -- 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
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
2016-09-20 16:30 GMT-03:00 Jaroslaw Staniek : > > > On 20 September 2016 at 21:19, Thomas Pfeiffer > wrote: >> >> On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: >>> >>> 2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell : Added: ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software? >>> >>> I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option. >> >> >> I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least recommended, >> because for an end user a web service based on GPL software is no better >> than one based on proprietary software, because they cannot tell what >> software it is they're interacting with. Therefore, the AGPL closes an >> important hole in FOSS web services. >> >> I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense to at >> least recommend AGPL for web software we produce. >> > > I see that too but also aren't we also limited here in one case: when our > LGPL software is usable for services? What can we do with e.g. KF5? Move it > to AGPL and add linking exception? > > Sorry if that's already solved some way. AGPL code can use GPL and LGPL libraries. -- Nicolás
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On 20 September 2016 at 21:19, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > >> 2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell : >> >>> Added: >>> ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be >>> licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later >>> Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL >>> Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software? >>> >> I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option. >> > > I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least recommended, > because for an end user a web service based on GPL software is no better > than one based on proprietary software, because they cannot tell what > software it is they're interacting with. Therefore, the AGPL closes an > important hole in FOSS web services. > > I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense to at > least recommend AGPL for web software we produce. > > I see that too but also aren't we also limited here in one case: when our LGPL software is usable for services? What can we do with e.g. KF5? Move it to AGPL and add linking exception? Sorry if that's already solved some way. -- 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
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: 2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell : Added: ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software? I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option. I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least recommended, because for an end user a web service based on GPL software is no better than one based on proprietary software, because they cannot tell what software it is they're interacting with. Therefore, the AGPL closes an important hole in FOSS web services. I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense to at least recommend AGPL for web software we produce.
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On 20 September 2016 at 20:42, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2016-09-20, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > Differences: > > Removed > > "code may not be copied from Qt into KDE Platform as Qt is LGPL 2.1" > > Rationale: Qt is now LGPL 3 as well as 2 > > Qt is not LGPL2.1 in general. As long as we want to be LGPL2.1 compat, > we can't copy code from Qt. > Precision is needed here; I can easily copy some Qt project's code and even relicense if I find it useful. I mean the BSD examples. > > > Added: > > ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be > > licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later > > Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL > > Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software? > > Not a requirement. Just like we don't have copyleft requirements > anywhere. > > And it should also be specific to things on a web server. > > For example: > An imap AGPLv3 server might be a bad thing - there is a way to notify > the user over teh imap protocol, but it is annoying for users, so it > should really not be used. (It is the way quota messages and similar > normally are sent) > > > Added: > > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be > > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 > > International." > > Again, I don't think we should force copyleft. > > > Changed: > > "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons > > Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International" > > Also here. No need to force copyleft. > > > Removed: > > Standalone media files CC 4.. "This does not apply to icons or > > anything which is likely to be mixed with content under our normal > > (GPL etc) licences." > > Rationale: CC 4 is compatible with GPL 3 which is the licence of > > Breeze icons anyway. > > I want my icons licensed under the same terms as my application. Even > when my application is more liberal licensed than GPLv3. > This. If I have icons that are part of my LGPL framework, I don't want my icons to be viral making the framework GPL and thus severly self-limited. The same goes for icons in LGPL apps (yes, LGPL is good for modular apps that happen to be a source of frameworks). I see a similar issue with widget styles such as Breeze; their viral GPL affects apps, libs or plugins that choose to include them. For _nobody's_ benefit. I see no need to be more paranoiac when dealing with friends than it's needed. -- 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
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On 2016-09-20, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > Differences: > Removed > "code may not be copied from Qt into KDE Platform as Qt is LGPL 2.1" > Rationale: Qt is now LGPL 3 as well as 2 Qt is not LGPL2.1 in general. As long as we want to be LGPL2.1 compat, we can't copy code from Qt. > > Added: > ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be > licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later > Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL > Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software? Not a requirement. Just like we don't have copyleft requirements anywhere. And it should also be specific to things on a web server. For example: An imap AGPLv3 server might be a bad thing - there is a way to notify the user over teh imap protocol, but it is annoying for users, so it should really not be used. (It is the way quota messages and similar normally are sent) > Added: > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 > International." Again, I don't think we should force copyleft. > Changed: > "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons > Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International" Also here. No need to force copyleft. > Removed: > Standalone media files CC 4.. "This does not apply to icons or > anything which is likely to be mixed with content under our normal > (GPL etc) licences." > Rationale: CC 4 is compatible with GPL 3 which is the licence of > Breeze icons anyway. I want my icons licensed under the same terms as my application. Even when my application is more liberal licensed than GPLv3. /Sune
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell : > Added: > ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be > licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later > Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL > Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software? I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option. Also, I think a lot of our websites don't have explicit licensing information for the code; we should fix that. -- Nicolás
Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates
On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 18:04:47 CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote: > It's time for a new updates to the KDE Licensing Policy > > [...] > Added: > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 > International." > Rationale: we have no policy for wikis but they are very important to > us especially with wikitoLearn so we should add one. Our wikis are > currently CC 3.0+FDL but we should consider moving to CC 4.0 (CC > includes an or later so there's no difficultly in doing this). FDL is > unmaintained and not much used so we can drop this. I disagree with "little used". What does it mean "unmaintained"? Is the MIT license maintained? I still would keep the dual license. Coming back later can be complicated if impossible. > > Changed: > "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons > Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International" > Rationale: Currently we use GNU FDL but that licence is unmaintained, > little used, problematic due to association with non-free options and > incompatible with the GPL. CC-BY-SA 4 is one way compatible with the > GPL (code can be copied from docs to GPL code). So I suggest moving > new docs to CC. See above. That would make mixing content really complicated, especially when we move from wiki to other formats or vice-versa. So same license in both (dual at most). -- Luigi
KDE Licensing Policy Updates
It's time for a new updates to the KDE Licensing Policy The purpose of the policy is to ensure a common understanding of what KDE code and contributions can be licenced as for copying. It should allow maximum reusability amongst KDE and other free software groups while ensuring people are encouraged to contribute back or at least not proprietise our code. https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft http://weegie.edinburghlinux.co.uk/~jr/tmp/policy-diff Differences: Removed "code may not be copied from Qt into KDE Platform as Qt is LGPL 2.1" Rationale: Qt is now LGPL 3 as well as 2 Added: ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software? Added: "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International." Rationale: we have no policy for wikis but they are very important to us especially with wikitoLearn so we should add one. Our wikis are currently CC 3.0+FDL but we should consider moving to CC 4.0 (CC includes an or later so there's no difficultly in doing this). FDL is unmaintained and not much used so we can drop this. Changed: "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International" Rationale: Currently we use GNU FDL but that licence is unmaintained, little used, problematic due to association with non-free options and incompatible with the GPL. CC-BY-SA 4 is one way compatible with the GPL (code can be copied from docs to GPL code). So I suggest moving new docs to CC. Changed: 'Standalone media files'' such as images may be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence" Rationale: Moved from CC 3 to CC 4 which has clearer language and is compatible with more countries' legal systems. CC 3 includes an "or later" so can be moved to CC 4 without asking the copyright holder. Removed: Standalone media files CC 4.. "This does not apply to icons or anything which is likely to be mixed with content under our normal (GPL etc) licences." Rationale: CC 4 is compatible with GPL 3 which is the licence of Breeze icons anyway. Let me know what you think Jonathan
