Add Trolltech GPL licence text

I've added an extra bullet to section 4 of the licence to allow for
code to be copied from Qt.

http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft

Does this seem sensible?

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

[Cornelius Schumacher]

On Wednesday 23 January 2008 01:10:04 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> I've added an extra bullet to section 4 of the licence to allow for
> code to be copied from Qt.
>
> http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
>
> Does this seem sensible?

Why do you want a special clause for code copied from Qt?

--
Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher@...>
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> Why do you want a special clause for code copied from Qt?

Because it would not otherwise be allowed.

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

[Cornelius Schumacher]

On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> > Why do you want a special clause for code copied from Qt?
>
> Because it would not otherwise be allowed.

Yes, but why would you allow code to be added which isn't allowed by our
license policy?

--
Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher@...>
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:09:37AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> > > Why do you want a special clause for code copied from Qt?
> >
> > Because it would not otherwise be allowed.
>
> Yes, but why would you allow code to be added which isn't allowed by our
> license policy?

It's moderatly common for code to be copied from Qt into KDE.  We
should allow that to happen as long as it doesn't harm us.

We are already contrained by the licencing terms Qt uses because we
link to it so it won't harm us to use those same terms.

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

[Matthew Woehlke-3]

Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>>> Why do you want a special clause for code copied from Qt?
>> Because it would not otherwise be allowed.
>
> Yes, but why would you allow code to be added which isn't allowed by our
> license policy?

Looking at the originally-referenced wiki page, the relevant addition
seems to be that, in addition to allowing "GPL version 2 or version 3 or
later versions approved by the membership of KDE e.V", we will now also
allow "GPL version 2 or version 3 or later versions approved by
Trolltech ASA and the KDE Free Qt Foundation". (What about code that
contains a mix of those sources? I suppose approval of a later license
by both "the membership of KDE e.V" and "Trolltech ASA and the KDE Free
Qt Foundation" is required?)

Of course, now that Qt is GPLv3, why do we still *require* GPLv2? ;-)

--
Matthew
Current geek index: 62%

_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

[Cornelius Schumacher]

On Wednesday 23 January 2008 14:29:38 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>
> It's moderatly common for code to be copied from Qt into KDE.  We
> should allow that to happen as long as it doesn't harm us.

Yes, what examples do we have?

> We are already contrained by the licencing terms Qt uses because we
> link to it so it won't harm us to use those same terms.

I guess you are right. We just should make sure that we don't create
additional restrictions for us by adding such a clause.

Another question is, if it's a good idea to copy code from Qt. But that's
probably more a technical discussion for another mailing list.

--
Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher@...>
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:25:03AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008 14:29:38 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> >
> > It's moderatly common for code to be copied from Qt into KDE.  We
> > should allow that to happen as long as it doesn't harm us.
>
> Yes, what examples do we have?

ksplashx comes to mind.

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:21:52PM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Looking at the originally-referenced wiki page, the relevant addition
> seems to be that, in addition to allowing "GPL version 2 or version 3 or
> later versions approved by the membership of KDE e.V", we will now also
> allow "GPL version 2 or version 3 or later versions approved by
> Trolltech ASA and the KDE Free Qt Foundation". (What about code that
> contains a mix of those sources? I suppose approval of a later license
> by both "the membership of KDE e.V" and "Trolltech ASA and the KDE Free
> Qt Foundation" is required?)

Yes.

> Of course, now that Qt is GPLv3, why do we still *require* GPLv2? ;-)

I don't see any need to move to GPL 3 only for now and it help us keep
compatibility with more free software apps if they want to copy bits
of our code.  Also we can't currently since we still have some GPL 2
only code.

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

[Matthew Woehlke-3]

Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:21:52PM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Of course, now that Qt is GPLv3, why do we still *require* GPLv2? ;-)
>
> I don't see any need to move to GPL 3 only for now and it help us keep
> compatibility with more free software apps if they want to copy bits
> of our code.

This is a valid point, if one I suspect RMS et all don't agree with ;-).

> Also we can't currently since we still have some GPL 2
> only code.

...but not violating the terms of existing code licenses is nothing new,
so I don't see how this applies.

So, in a nutshell, KDE is still requiring all code to be licensed under
a GPLv2-compatible license :-(.

--
Matthew
No animal should ever jump on the dining room furniture unless
absolutely certain he can hold his own in conversation -- Fran Lebowitz

_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

At Thursday 24 January 2008 00:25, you wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008 14:29:38 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> >
> > It's moderatly common for code to be copied from Qt into KDE.  We
> > should allow that to happen as long as it doesn't harm us.
>
> Yes, what examples do we have?

Just a quick look at http://toma.kovoks.nl/kde/?show=ok at least points to (it's not a complete list):

  kdebase/workspace/kcontrol/input/xcursor/bitmaps.h  
  kdevelop/plugins/qtdesigner/internals/qdesigner_integration_p.h  
  kdevelop/plugins/qtdesigner/internals/shared_global_p.h  
  kdevplatform/interfaces/iextension.h
  kdevplatform/test/common/modeltest.cpp  
  kdevplatform/test/common/modeltest.h  

I guess we can replace the license on those files now...

Toma
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing