Re: Comments on proposal for revised license policy

Thanks for your comments.

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

This is already there.

> 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.

This is also already there.

> 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?

Changed.

> > - 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?

The latter.

> 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.

Yes, that's why we need to contact people who have GPL 2 only code and
convince them to change.

> The only sane way out of this problem I can think of is dual-licensing under 
> version 2 and 3.

Which is what this draft licence policy proposes.

> But this would mean a change of existing licensing, which 
> probably is a huge effort. For new code we could of course demand that.

No, it's not that huge.
See http://kubuntu.org/~jriddell/tmp/KDE-GPLv2-only-copyright-holders

and that is out of date.

> 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.

I don't see any reason for phasing out GPL 2 in the forseeable future.

> 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?

LGPL works best for icons, creative commons has legal issues (it's not
considered Free by Debian for example).

> > 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?

Yes, they work fine.

Jonathan