Re: kdepim/konsolekalendar [POSSIBLY UNSAFE]

I'm cc'ing Allen because he seems to be another copyright holder of 
konsolekalendar and I think he needs to be involved in this discussion.

On Monday 22 March 2004 10:04, Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 [email protected] wrote:
> > I _DON_T_ like GPL/QPL abroach to give all the code and using
> > rights for people who paid to trolltech (they should give money to
> > KDE also).

konsolekalendar was GPL-licensed. The QPL wasn't involved at all.

> This sentence doesn't make sense (grammatically). You don't like the
> GPL/QPL, but it's not clear why - or why you assume that QPL would
> apply to your application.
>
> > Everyone should have that right or no-one than me;).

konsolekalendar was GPL-licensed. So everyone had equal rights. Changing 
the license to LGPL didn't change anything in this respect. Basically 
the only difference between LGPL and GPL is that 
proprietary/closed-source applications are allowed to link to 
LGPL-licensed libraries but not to GPL-licensed libraries. But since 
konsolekalendar isn't a library there's no difference between GPL or 
LGPL (apart from the fact that a license which was written for 
libraries isn't really suitable for a program).

> > i _REALLY_ 
> > know LGPL is for libraries and but it's more open and i can use
> > it..

More open than what? Than the GPL? That's correct (at least for 
libraries). LGPL is more open because it allows big companies to use an 
LGPL-licensed library in a proprietary application without giving 
anything back to the community. If, on the other hand, companies wanted 
to use a GPL-licensed library then they would have to release their 
applications under a GPL-compatible Free Software license. So in fact 
the GPL is much better for most libraries than the LGPL because 
GPL-licensed libraries can't be used by big companies without giving 
anything back to the community while LGPL-licensed libraries can be 
used this way. See also: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

> > I would license my app under BSD style license if i have 
> > change but i think that GPL/QPL stuff makes it impossible.. So tell
> > me what i can do if I _DON_T_ want to use GPL/QPL license..

There's nothing wrong with keeping the GPL.

> Use any one of GPL, QPL, MIT, Artistic, LGPL, BSD (no advert clause)
> or X11 (before the feb 2004 change) as stated in
> http://developer.kde.org/policies/licensepolicy.html .
>
> > ps. Thanks about flaming me as i assumed
>
> You, Tukka, have a weird notion of flaming if you think Ingo's
> question is a flame.

Exactly. It was just a simple question. I just wanted to know your 
motivation for changing the license. Don't get me wrong, but I do have 
the impression that you are a bit confused about the whole license 
issue. We'll happily answer all your questions with regard to 
licensing.

Regards,
Ingo

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAX3xaGnR+RTDgudgRAiNMAJ9a1Q/33PsWBUO1mExNcGECKV4XfQCfUC+Z
jxH8mXvP0o3vZbbqrl+EY7g=
=tei0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----