Re: Updated Licence Draft

On Friday 23 November 2007, 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.

Frankly, I don't see why we should run again knowingly into exactly the 
same trap we are currently trying to escape from. I formally object 
against watering down the license policy by allowing "(L)GPL v2 or v3" 
just because a few people for whatever reasons trust neither the FSF 
nor the KDE e.V.


Regards,
Ingo

_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHTKzQGnR+RTDgudgRAvrhAKC8VT8imjL2E3uu3APnQDPrboXRFwCgrelH
JBjckTdEMkdkO3acGwGR1CQ=
=TxZT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----