Re: kdepim/konsolekalendar [POSSIBLY UNSAFE]

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