Comments on proposal for revised license policy

A couple of comments on Jonathan's proposal for a revised license policy (the 
current policy is at http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy and 
the proposed new version is at 
http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft):

> All source code in KDE SVN must meet the following requirements:
> 1 All source files must contain a copyright header which identifies the
> copyright holder(s) together with a e-mail address that can be used to
> reach the copyright holder.

Maybe it would be good to specify the exact format here, something like     
"Copyright (c) 2007 Cornelius Schumacher <[email protected]>".

> 2 Each source file must contain a license or a 
> reference to a license which states under which terms the software may be
> used, modified and redistributed.

Again it might be good to exactly define how the license header has to look 
like, so include a license header in the policy not only for the GPL and 
LGPL, but also for the other licenses.

(Irrelevant sidenote: we even could write a program which adds license headers 
to files, and checks for compliance with the policy).

> 3 Source files that are part of a library 
> in kdelibs must be licensed under the terms of any of the following
> licenses:

I think we have to define "library in kdelibs" a bit better. What about 
"library with a public API which is part of the KDE Developer Platform (i.e. 
in the SVN modules kdesupport, kdelibs or kdepimlibs)"? Should we add public 
libraries of other modules here as well?

> - LGPL as listed in kdelibs/COPYING.LIB versions 2, 2.1, 3 and 
> later versions approved by KDE e.V. (or a simple version 2 or later)

It's a bit unclear to me what that's supposed to mean. Would that mean that 
code has to be licensed under one of version 2, 2.1, 3 or another KDE e.V. 
approved version? Or would it mean that code has to be multiply licensed 
under all of these versions?

There is the fundamental problem that (L)GPL version 2 and 3 are not 
compatible. That means that as long as we have version 2 only files around we 
can't add version 3 files to the same library. It also means that once a 
version 3 only (or 3 and later) file is added all the version 2 or later file 
automatically become version 3 and can't be combined with version 2 only 
files anymore.

The only sane way out of this problem I can think of is dual-licensing under 
version 2 and 3. But this would mean a change of existing licensing, which 
probably is a huge effort. For new code we could of course demand that.

We should probably also ask us the question, if we want to phase out (L)GPL 
version 2 and go for version 3 (or later) only. I guess this is more a 
political question than a legal one, but other projects go this road, so for 
us it's at least an option.

> - BSD 
> license as listed in kdelibs/COPYING.BSD and below.
> Note that the BSD license does not contain the so called 'advertisement
> clause'.
> - MIT license as listed below. 
> - X11 license as listed below.
> 4 Any other source files must be licensed under the terms of one of the
> licenses listed under 3) or any of the following licenses: GPL as listed in
> kdelibs/COPYING versions 2, 3 and later versions approved by KDE e.V. (or a
> simple version 2 or later) Artistic license as listed below.

The same version consideration as for the LGPL apply here.

> 5 Icons in kdelibs, kdepimlibs or kdebase runtime must be licenced under the
> LGPL 3 and later versions approved by KDE e.V. Icons elsewhere can be
> licenced under any of the above licences.

Is LGPL the right license for icons? Isn't LGPL meant for code? Wouldn't it be 
better to go for example for a Creative Commons license?

> 6 Documentation must be licensed 
> under the FDL as listed in kdelibs/COPYING-DOCS versions 1.2 and later
> versions approved by KDE e.V. with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover
> Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. It may also be licensed under any of the
> above licences. (or a simple version 1.2 or later)

What does "any of the above licenses" mean? And again the question, are these 
licenses, which are meant for code, appropriate for documentation?

-- 
Cornelius Schumacher <[email protected]>