Re: kdepim/konsolekalendar [POSSIBLY UNSAFE]

People, please don't remove kde-licensing from the list of recipients.

On Tuesday 23 March 2004 14:23, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 March 2004 14:01, [email protected] wrote:
> > Reason:
> > 1. QPL is not free. It offers favors to one party over other. Money
> > that should be paid to KDE project goes to TrollTech.
>
> I think one part of the misunderstanding is that you mention QPL. The
> QPL isn't used in KDE very frequently. I don't know if it is used at
> all. It isn't a very good license for open-source projects.

Nobody was talking about QPL. We would never suggest to use this license 
(because it's incompatible with the GPL). Instead Bo asked for using 
GPL + Qt exception for konsolekalendar so that it's possible to link 
konsolekalendar to the Windows version of the Qt library which is not 
GPL-licensed, but QPL-licensed (maybe that's what was causing the 
confusion).

To quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html:
=====
Since the QPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, you cannot take a 
GPL-covered program and QPL-covered program and link them together, no 
matter how.

However, if you have written a program that uses QPL-covered library 
(called FOO), and you want to release your program under the GNU GPL, 
you can easily do that. You can resolve the conflict for your program 
by adding a notice like this to it:

  As a special exception, you have permission to link this program
  with the FOO library and distribute executables, as long as you
  follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the
  software in the executable aside from FOO.

You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the 
program. Add it in the source files, after the notice that says the 
program is covered by the GNU GPL.
=====

> > 5. I like use artistic license. BUT because QT is GPL I think we
> > can't use it. GPL spoils everyapplication it get touch.

Are you believing the FUD Microsoft is spreading? GPL doesn't spoil 
everything that gets in touch with it. You just have to use a GPL 
compatible license if you want to link to a GPL-licensed library. But 
there are plenty of GPL-compatible licenses and since you don't intend 
to make konsolekalendar closed/proprietary software there's really no 
problem.

> I think the Artistic license is possible to use because Qt is
> dual-licensed QPL/GPL. The QPL is compatible with the Artistic
> license. But it makes the license situation more complex than LGPL or
> GPL (with or without exception).

Again let me quote http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html:
=====
The Clarified Artistic License. 
This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL. It is 
the minimal set of changes needed to correct the vagueness of the 
Original Artistic License. 

The Artistic License 2.0 
This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL. It is 
not in use yet to our knowledge; this license is being considered for 
use in Perl 6 as part of a disjunctive dual licensing scheme. 

If you are thinking of releasing a program under Original Artistic 
License, please consider this revised version instead. However, please 
do investigate other GPL-compatible, Free Software licensing options 
listed here first.
=====

and

=====
The (Original) Artistic License. 
We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too 
vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their 
meaning is not clear. We urge you to avoid using it, except as part of 
the disjunctive license of Perl. 

The problems are matters of wording, not substance. There is a revised 
version of the Artistic License (dubbed "The Artistic License 2.0") 
which is a free software license, and even compatible with the GNU GPL. 
This license is being considered for use in Perl 6. If you are thinking 
of releasing a program under the Artistic License, please do 
investigate other GPL-compatible, Free Software licensing options 
listed here first.
=====

So I don't think there's a problem with using either the Clarified 
Artistic License or the Artistic License 2.0.

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)

iD8DBQBAYMNWGnR+RTDgudgRAqn1AJ0VNj6WaMbYTc9uuggE0J9kG2ESvACgwEer
WFoaifrZYMZSxVNFAF83UXE=
=9SvC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----