Re: Updated Licence Draft

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 02:09:28AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> 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.

There seems to be a few, and short of replacing the code they have we
need to accept whatever they'll let us do for now.  But in the longer
term we shouldn't allow ourselves to be in this situation again.

If one of them wanted to explain what their reasoning is that would be
useful, but I really can't imagine the FSF creating a licence that
suddenly allows for evil uses of code.

> > > 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?

We don't use icons in those for just this reason (I'm told).

Jonathan