Re: Updated Licence Draft

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 19:39:20 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> We're updating the licence policy for KDE to obsolete old licences,
> ensure GPL 3 compatibility and fill in some gaps.
>
> Please take a look at it and comment on the kde-licencing list.
>
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft

To make clear that we are not allowing to license code under only a single of 
the listed licenses, but only under certain combinations I would suggest to 
change "must be licensed under the terms of any of the following licenses" 
to "must be licensed under one of the following terms".

I would also suggest to add an "or" for the v2,v3 multiple licensing: "LGPL 
version 2.1 or version 3 or later versions approved by the KDE e.V." That 
makes it a bit clearer to me that there is a choice between all options.

Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without the KDE e.V. 
approved license choice? I guess there are people who aren't willing to 
license their code under a license they can't know yet.

Is there no problem with licensing icons under LGPL 3 and later only without a 
LGPL v2 option? Isn't there a conflict when linking LGPL 3 icons with GPL 2 
only code?

The icon text is also saying "LGPL v3 *and* later versions approved by the KDE 
e.V." At other places we use "or" instead of "and". Shouldn't we use "or" 
here as well?

There are several references to "one of the above licenses". Wouldn't it be 
better to explicitly reference the section and don't refer to an individual 
license, but to a term of a combination of licenses? So the wording would be 
like: "one of the terms listed in section 3 or 5".

-- 
Cornelius Schumacher <[email protected]>