Re: kdepim/konsolekalendar [POSSIBLY UNSAFE]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sorry for jeopardy-quoting here, but the thread is quite long and my 
comment is fairly generic.

When licensing an application with Qt, there are two choices you can take:

- - LGPL
- - GPL + Qt exception

The first one makes sense if we later make the application be a part and 
want to allow the part to be usable in commercial applications. The vim 
part could be a good example of this. Or if the app is split in a library 
and an application - like IMHO all lowlevel tools should have been long 
time ago.

But both licenses solve the problem, so which one you choose for an 
application is up to you. GPL/Qt gives the normal GPL protection. LGPL 
has more doors open - both for us and for others.

Personally I don't care at all who uses the software I write. I don't have 
that scare of commercial companies using the stuff - basically because 
they would always then be behind us instead of in front of us.

'Nuff said. Choose your poison.

Bo.

On Tuesday 23 March 2004 01:37, Allen Winter wrote:
> On Monday 22 March 2004 06:52 pm, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > 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
>
> Thanks for including me.  Yes, I am a copyright holder on
> konsolekalendar.
>
> A couple points:
>  - License change only came up because Bo asked due to the "only
> commercial Qt available in Windows" problem.
>  - We asked Bo if LGPL was better for his purposes and he said yes,
> IIRC. - So, that's we we changed to LGPL.  Else, we wouldn't have
> bothered. - If LGPL won't help matters, then Tuukka and I are willing
> to change to Artistic license if that solves things
>  - All in all, we'd rather stick with GPL.  But we also want to
> accomodate the Windows issue. - Tuukka has his problems with the GPL+Qt
> exception license (as korganizer has) and I won't argue with his
> reasons.  I don't have a problem with GPL+Qt exception, but Tuukka has
> his reasons and I don't think we should try to convince him otherwise.
>
> In conclusion, if Artistic license will help Bo's cause, then we are
> willing to go that way. Else, we stick with GPL.
>
> ... On second thought...  the more I think about things... the more I
> want to stay with GPL. Unless Tuukka changes his mind about the Qt
> exception, then the license should stay pure GPL.
>
> Regards,
> Allen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAX+QEmT99lwfUS5IRAnT9AJwNDwwJ59NtqGO20ZUcJWsKgtzJ8ACgjUPg
oGi1lS9X0iWNvVWOiMAG7tQ=
=9gPz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----