Re: Updated Licence Draft
Cornelius Schumacher <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.licensing |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Friday 23 November 2007 01:10:51 Jonathan Riddell wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote: > > > 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. > > One of the major features of thus update is to make it future proof so > we don't end up with the same problems as we currently have again. Yes, but aren't there a number of contributors who still don't want to have the blanket "or later" statement, although they agree to license under GPL 3? http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing seems to indicate that. > > 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? > > I don't know of anywhere that we link icons to code. .ui files no > longer contain embedded images. What about Qt resource files? -- Cornelius Schumacher <[email protected]>