I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy
https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now
includes a handy changelog.
-Note that Qt is LGPL 3 not 2.1
-Code copied from Qt can be GPL 3 as w
On Friday, 10 February 2017 14:54:52 CET Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy
>
> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
>
> I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now
> includes a handy chang
On 10 February 2017 at 15:54, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy
>
> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
>
> I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now
> includes a handy changelog.
>
>
On Friday 10 February 2017 16:06:23 Luigi Toscano wrote:
> Would we allowed to keep the documents with old license and apply this only
> to new one?
Luigi,
This point is listed under "All new source code and related data files ..." and
there's an additional point 12, "Documentation started bef
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:48:41PM +0100, Burkhard Lück wrote:
> I fail to understand why FDL is dropped for Documentation, content on
> userbase
> is still dual licensed (CC_BY-SA 3.0 and FDL 1.2) and even the
> Licensing_Policy/Draft content itself is available under Creative Commons
> Licen
Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2017, 14:54:52 CET schrieb Jonathan Riddell:
> I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy
>
> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
>
> I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now
> includes a handy c
Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2017, 18:43:38 CET schrieb Adriaan de Groot:
> This point is listed under "All new source code and related data files ..."
> and? there's an additional point 12, "Documentation started before 2016 can
> be licensed under ..." which would seem to be exactly what you're asking
Jonathan Riddell ha scritto:
> The main change is for docs and other non-code files to become
> CC-BY-SA 4. This allows it to be converted to code (it's one-way
> compatible with LGPL 3)
Do you have more details for this? I see contradicting information, it does
not seem to be totally future pro
