(Sending from the proper account this time)
Hello KDE Community,
Several years ago when transitioning to Git the sysadmins evaluated
several possible options, including GitLab, Gitorious, Gitolite, and
Gerrit. At the time, GitLab was quite immature in terms of code,
community, and documentati
On Fri, February 14, 2014 20:34:51 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Divendres, 14 de febrer de 2014, a les 10:31:24, Jonathan Riddell va
>
> escriure:
> > I've made some proposed changes to the KDE Licensing Policy
> >
> > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
> >
> > Most signifi
Morning
Slightly embarrassing but here is the link:
http://survey.kde.org/index.php/249736/lang-en
Thx
Mario
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Le 14/02/2014 14:12, Inge Wallin a écrit :
On Friday, February 14, 2014 00:28:38 Bruno Coudoin wrote:
> Le 13/02/2014 23:17, Aaron J. Seigo a écrit :
> > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 22:54:12 Bruno Coudoin wrote:
> >> Anyway another approach is needed here for the new version.
> >
> > Kni
On Friday 14. February 2014 10.31.24 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> 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
Actually, this is most of the time not even an issue.
You
On Thursday 13. February 2014 22.35.20 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> Another note, QML code is often BSD licensed, this is implied from how
> simple, ad-hoc code is sometimes reused in practice (well, copy/paste
> web manner).
Maybe you are referring to the idea that obvious and short text doesn't get
On Friday 14. February 2014 10.46.52 Laszlo Papp wrote:
> I would personally hope for a list of advantages and improvements
> before even proposing a KDE wide license change.
Agreed, good thing that that is not being proposed.
--
Thomas Zander
___
kde-c
On Friday 14. February 2014 13.02.31 Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > The new twist with GPLv3 is that _more_ companies do not like it
> > (particularly in the device and media industries) so the prospective
> > market
> > grew for relicensing. I also don’t think this is at all relevant to KDE
> > applicatio
El Divendres, 14 de febrer de 2014, a les 10:31:24, Jonathan Riddell va
escriure:
> 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 G
Em sex 14 fev 2014, às 10:31:24, Jonathan Riddell escreveu:
> #* Code copied from Qt may be licenced under '''GPL''' version 2 or version
> 3 or later versions approved by Trolltech ASA and the KDE Free Qt
> Foundation ->
> #* Code copied from Qt may be licenced under '''GPL''' version 2 or later
>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 16:02:03 Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> > I've made some proposed changes to the KDE Licensing Policy
>> >
>> > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Po
On Friday, February 14, 2014 16:02:03 Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jonathan Riddell 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+
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:02:03PM +, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> 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,
Hi Jonathan,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jonathan Riddell 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
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:28:08PM +0100, ivan.cu...@gmail.com wrote:
> +1 for adding gpl3 to the licensing policy
Please review the proposals I have made and posted in the thread "licence
policy updates"
Jonathan
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-
First and foremost I'd like to thank all the people who already took some time
and participated in the questionnaire [1] for my diploma thesis and KDE.
But it's not over yet (last chance is on 25th of February) and we still need
more data and as a member of KDE I know we can do more and better.
+1 for adding gpl3 to the licensing policy
Sorry for the short reply, answering from a bus :)
Cheerio,
Ivan
Original Message
From: Aaron J. Seigo
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014 21:30
To: kde-community@kde.org
Reply To: informing about and discussing non-technical community topics
Subjec
On 13 February 2014 21:40, Bruno Coudoin wrote:
> Le 13/02/2014 21:59, Jaroslaw Staniek a écrit :
>
This is like a hybrid, one leg in KDE, one leg in FSF so far and
>> really, a distraction or me. If this is mostly work from scratch, I
>> hope relicensing would be possible.
>>
>
> I have not thou
On 02/14/2014 02:52 PM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
It would feel wrong to me to reject an application to participate in KDE
because it chose the wrong version of the GPL.
As long as you are careful that when reusing code you don't combine code
which is licensed under incompatible licenses (which
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 21:19:31 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> So maybe it's time we think about adding GPLv3+ to the Licensing Policy?
>
> What do you guys think?
I'd welcome that.
It would feel wrong to me to reject an application to participate in KDE
because it chose the wrong version o
Hi,
On Friday, 2014-02-14, 15:25:19, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:59:19 +0100
>
> Kevin Krammer wrote:
> > I doubt that the FSF has any problem with cryptography being used to
> > protect users from software from untrusted sources so I doubt that they
> > do not co
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:59:19 +0100
Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Friday, 2014-02-14, 13:02:31, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:17:05 +0100
> >
> > "Aaron J. Seigo" wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:24:12 Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> > > > The VideoL
On Friday, February 14, 2014 00:28:38 Bruno Coudoin wrote:
> Le 13/02/2014 23:17, Aaron J. Seigo a écrit :
> > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 22:54:12 Bruno Coudoin wrote:
> >> Anyway another approach is needed here for the new version.
> >
> > Knights, a chess program written with KDE libraries,
On Friday, 2014-02-14, 13:02:31, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:17:05 +0100
>
> "Aaron J. Seigo" wrote:
> > On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:24:12 Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > > The VideoLAN / VLC project took the opposite approach and after being
> > > unhappy with the GPLv
On Friday, 2014-02-14, 11:44:29, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Friday, 2014-02-14, 09:05:11, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >> I would also like to note that making such a significant change in the
> >> base values of KDE is more than just including a new project appearing
> >> to have this license already in
Hi Aaron,
>> > This is true of other GPL versions as well, so nothing really new.
>>
>> Sure, it is not new, but disadvantegous due to flexibility. Should one
>> decide one day to prefer code sharing, this limitation would block it;
>> at least in my current understanding.
>
> Relicensing is a pos
Hi Aaron,
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:17:05 +0100
"Aaron J. Seigo" wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:24:12 Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > 1. GPLv3 was not commonly acceptable as a suitable licence. Many companies
> > who had no significant with GPLv2 won't get near any GPLv3-licensed code.
> > Some pe
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Dijous, 13 de febrer de 2014, a les 13:42:15, Bruno Coudoin va escriure:
>> Le 13/02/2014 10:26, Jonathan Riddell a écrit :
>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:48:00AM +0100, Bruno Coudoin wrote:
>> >> I am the creator and main developer o
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 polic
Laszlo Papp:
> However, I think the topic is quite complex, and I do not think geek
> consensus should decide here. It would be better to involve the KDE/Qt
> foundation, too, because they might have more clear idea about it what
> it means to KDE.
Since you probably mean the KDE Free Qt Foundatio
On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:24:12 Shlomi Fish wrote:
> 1. GPLv3 was not commonly acceptable as a suitable licence. Many companies
> who had no significant with GPLv2 won't get near any GPLv3-licensed code.
> Some people told me you can licence your code as GPLv3 (or worse - AGPLv3),
> so your c
On Friday, February 14, 2014 07:26:45 Laszlo Papp wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 21:16:27 Laszlo Papp wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 20:32:
32 matches
Mail list logo
