Re: kdevplatform mixed licences

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 07:55:49PM +0200, Aleix Pol wrote:
>    * GPL 3+ code: That's just the subversion support. If nobody sees a better
>    solution, I'd move it to playground and extragear and let the users decide
>    if they want to have it. We can add a warning or something on the README
>    or cmake output.

Yeah that would work, I guess you'd have to judge if this would be a notable loss for kdevelop.

>    * GPL 2 only code: As far as I understand it's only a matter of having
>    KDAB's code relicensed, which David already did, so we can move it forward
>    already? Or we need Manuel?

I think it does need Manuel who seems to have disappeared sometime around 2009 :(

>    * LGPL 2 code: I'm unsure why it's a problem. It's because we should
>    change them to LGPL2+, right?

It's not a problem to distribute it, it just doesn't comply with KDE
licence policy which is designed to keep the number of licences to a
minimum so any code sharing doesn't have to think too hard about
it. interestingly LGPL 2 allows for GPL2+ so it's mostly about just
making it easy on any coders who would have to care if they borrowed
the code.

Jonathan