Re: Updated Licence Draft

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Wednesday 21 November 2007, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> We're updating the licence policy for KDE to obsolete old licences,
> ensure GPL 3 compatibility and fill in some gaps.
>
> Please take a look at it and comment on the kde-licencing list.
>
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft

Looks good except for the fact that the copyright headers still contain
the nonsensical "(c)". It has been said time and again that it has
absolutely no legal relevance. Please remove it.


Regards,
Ingo


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

[Cornelius Schumacher]

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 19:39:20 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> We're updating the licence policy for KDE to obsolete old licences,
> ensure GPL 3 compatibility and fill in some gaps.
>
> Please take a look at it and comment on the kde-licencing list.
>
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft

To make clear that we are not allowing to license code under only a single of
the listed licenses, but only under certain combinations I would suggest to
change "must be licensed under the terms of any of the following licenses"
to "must be licensed under one of the following terms".

I would also suggest to add an "or" for the v2,v3 multiple licensing: "LGPL
version 2.1 or version 3 or later versions approved by the KDE e.V." That
makes it a bit clearer to me that there is a choice between all options.

Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without the KDE e.V.
approved license choice? I guess there are people who aren't willing to
license their code under a license they can't know yet.

Is there no problem with licensing icons under LGPL 3 and later only without a
LGPL v2 option? Isn't there a conflict when linking LGPL 3 icons with GPL 2
only code?

The icon text is also saying "LGPL v3 *and* later versions approved by the KDE
e.V." At other places we use "or" instead of "and". Shouldn't we use "or"
here as well?

There are several references to "one of the above licenses". Wouldn't it be
better to explicitly reference the section and don't refer to an individual
license, but to a term of a combination of licenses? So the wording would be
like: "one of the terms listed in section 3 or 5".

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

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:

> On Wednesday 21 November 2007 19:39:20 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > We're updating the licence policy for KDE to obsolete old licences,
> > ensure GPL 3 compatibility and fill in some gaps.
> >
> > Please take a look at it and comment on the kde-licencing list.
> >
> > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
>
> To make clear that we are not allowing to license code under only a single of
> the listed licenses, but only under certain combinations I would suggest to
> change "must be licensed under the terms of any of the following licenses"
> to "must be licensed under one of the following terms".
>
> I would also suggest to add an "or" for the v2,v3 multiple licensing: "LGPL
> version 2.1 or version 3 or later versions approved by the KDE e.V." That
> makes it a bit clearer to me that there is a choice between all options.
>
> There are several references to "one of the above licenses". Wouldn't it be
> better to explicitly reference the section and don't refer to an individual
> license, but to a term of a combination of licenses? So the wording would be
> like: "one of the terms listed in section 3 or 5".
>
> The icon text is also saying "LGPL v3 *and* later versions approved by the KDE
> e.V." At other places we use "or" instead of "and". Shouldn't we use "or"
> here as well?

Good suggestions, I've applied them to the text.

> Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without the KDE e.V.
> approved license choice? I guess there are people who aren't willing to
> license their code under a license they can't know yet.

One of the major features of thus update is to make it future proof so
we don't end up with the same problems as we currently have again.

> Is there no problem with licensing icons under LGPL 3 and later only without a
> LGPL v2 option? Isn't there a conflict when linking LGPL 3 icons with GPL 2
> only code?

I don't know of anywhere that we link icons to code. .ui files no
longer contain embedded images.

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

[Cornelius Schumacher]

On Friday 23 November 2007 01:10:51 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>
> > Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without the KDE
> > e.V. approved license choice? I guess there are people who aren't willing
> > to license their code under a license they can't know yet.
>
> One of the major features of thus update is to make it future proof so
> we don't end up with the same problems as we currently have again.

Yes, but aren't there a number of contributors who still don't want to have
the blanket "or later" statement, although they agree to license under GPL 3?
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing seems to indicate that.

> > Is there no problem with licensing icons under LGPL 3 and later only
> > without a LGPL v2 option? Isn't there a conflict when linking LGPL 3
> > icons with GPL 2 only code?
>
> I don't know of anywhere that we link icons to code. .ui files no
> longer contain embedded images.

What about Qt resource files?

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

On Friday 23 Nov 2007, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Friday 23 November 2007 01:10:51 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher
wrote:

> > > Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without
> > > the KDE e.V. approved license choice? I guess there are people
> > > who aren't willing to license their code under a license they
> > > can't know yet.
> >
> > One of the major features of thus update is to make it future proof
> > so we don't end up with the same problems as we currently have
> > again.
>
> Yes, but aren't there a number of contributors who still don't want
> to have the blanket "or later" statement, although they agree to
> license under GPL 3? http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing
> seems to indicate that.

I count 4 so far that don't want any sort of "later than v3"
permission - either just v2+ or v2/v3/e.v.

There are also several that said v2+ but not v2/v3/e.v.  I'm not sure
how we reconcile with those who say v2/v3/e.v. but not v2+ if they
worked on the same file...

Alex



--
KDE: http://www.kde.org
Ubuntu/Kubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.org http://www.kubuntu.org


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

On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 11:02:12PM +0100, Ingo Kl?cker wrote:

> On Wednesday 21 November 2007, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > We're updating the licence policy for KDE to obsolete old licences,
> > ensure GPL 3 compatibility and fill in some gaps.
> >
> > Please take a look at it and comment on the kde-licencing list.
> >
> > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft
>
> Looks good except for the fact that the copyright headers still contain
> the nonsensical "(c)". It has been said time and again that it has
> absolutely no legal relevance. Please remove it.

I don't see any reason to remove it though, it is common practice by
pretty much everybody.  However this is a wiki so you can edit
yourself.

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

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 02:09:28AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:

> On Friday 23 November 2007 01:10:51 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> >
> > > Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without the KDE
> > > e.V. approved license choice? I guess there are people who aren't willing
> > > to license their code under a license they can't know yet.
> >
> > One of the major features of thus update is to make it future proof so
> > we don't end up with the same problems as we currently have again.
>
> Yes, but aren't there a number of contributors who still don't want to have
> the blanket "or later" statement, although they agree to license under GPL 3?
> http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing seems to indicate that.

There seems to be a few, and short of replacing the code they have we
need to accept whatever they'll let us do for now.  But in the longer
term we shouldn't allow ourselves to be in this situation again.

If one of them wanted to explain what their reasoning is that would be
useful, but I really can't imagine the FSF creating a licence that
suddenly allows for evil uses of code.

> > > Is there no problem with licensing icons under LGPL 3 and later only
> > > without a LGPL v2 option? Isn't there a conflict when linking LGPL 3
> > > icons with GPL 2 only code?
> >
> > I don't know of anywhere that we link icons to code. .ui files no
> > longer contain embedded images.
>
> What about Qt resource files?

We don't use icons in those for just this reason (I'm told).

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

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:22:01AM +0000, Alex Merry wrote:
> There are also several that said v2+ but not v2/v3/e.v.  I'm not sure
> how we reconcile with those who say v2/v3/e.v. but not v2+ if they
> worked on the same file...

Just note that the file contains code under both terms, it'll come
down to the lower common denominator which would be v2/v3/e.v.

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

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Friday 23 November 2007, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Friday 23 November 2007 01:10:51 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher
wrote:

> > > Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without
> > > the KDE e.V. approved license choice? I guess there are people
> > > who aren't willing to license their code under a license they
> > > can't know yet.
> >
> > One of the major features of thus update is to make it future proof
> > so we don't end up with the same problems as we currently have
> > again.
>
> Yes, but aren't there a number of contributors who still don't want
> to have the blanket "or later" statement, although they agree to
> license under GPL 3? http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing
> seems to indicate that.

Frankly, I don't see why we should run again knowingly into exactly the
same trap we are currently trying to escape from. I formally object
against watering down the license policy by allowing "(L)GPL v2 or v3"
just because a few people for whatever reasons trust neither the FSF
nor the KDE e.V.


Regards,
Ingo


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

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Friday 23 November 2007, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:22:01AM +0000, Alex Merry wrote:
> > There are also several that said v2+ but not v2/v3/e.v.  I'm not
> > sure how we reconcile with those who say v2/v3/e.v. but not v2+ if
> > they worked on the same file...
>
> Just note that the file contains code under both terms, it'll come
> down to the lower common denominator which would be v2/v3/e.v.

No, it'll come down to the intersection of v2+ and v2/v3/e.v. which is
{v2, v3, any v2+ license approved by the e.V.}. Relicensing under an
arbitrary license approved by the e.V. would not be possible.


Regards,
Ingo


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

Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> Yes, but aren't there a number of contributors who still don't want to have
> the blanket "or later" statement, although they agree to license under GPL 3?
> http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing seems to indicate that.

Say, how come I am on the TODO list? :-)

  GPLv2 ->  GPLv2+   - NO
LGPLv2 -> LGPLv2+   - NO
  GPLv2 ->  GPLv2+v3 - YES
LGPLv2 -> LGPLv2+v3 - YES
KDE e.V. decides    - NO*

Btw, is "KDE e.V. decides" referring to the v3 clause allowing e.V. to
allow a later version of GPL, or to allow /an arbitrary license/? Might
want to make that clear...

(* but I might change my mind. I'm also curious if there is such a thing
as '/in the event I cannot be contacted/, e.V. can decide' :-).)

--
Matthew
"Still not King." -- Aragorn
(as quoted in The Very Secret Diaries by Cassandra Claire)
http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/

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

Op Wednesday 28 November 2007 01:55 schreef u:
> Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> > Yes, but aren't there a number of contributors who still don't want to have
> > the blanket "or later" statement, although they agree to license under GPL 3?
> > http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing seems to indicate that.
>
> Say, how come I am on the TODO list? :-)

Please update the wiki or the relicense script in kdesdk/scripts.
 
> Btw, is "KDE e.V. decides" referring to the v3 clause allowing e.V. to
> allow a later version of GPL, or to allow /an arbitrary license/? Might
> want to make that clear...

In theory there is a difference, but I don't think the majority of voters in the e.V. will approve some weird, arbitary, license.

> (* but I might change my mind. I'm also curious if there is such a thing
> as '/in the event I cannot be contacted/, e.V. can decide' :-).)

That's the case. As long as you can be contacted, you decide.

Toma

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

[Dirk Mueller-2]

On Friday 23 November 2007, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:

> of the listed licenses, but only under certain combinations I would suggest
> to change "must be licensed under the terms of any of the following
> licenses" to "must be licensed under one of the following terms".

I agree. Jonathan, a reason why you didn`t pick that up (am I looking at the
wrong draft?).

> I would also suggest to add an "or" for the v2,v3 multiple licensing: "LGPL
> version 2.1 or version 3 or later versions approved by the KDE e.V." That
> makes it a bit clearer to me that there is a choice between all options.

+1

> Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without the KDE
> e.V. approved license choice? I guess there are people who aren't willing
> to license their code under a license they can't know yet.

Lets try to avoid it for now. we can still add exceptions later ;)


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

[Dirk Mueller-2]

On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

> Say, how come I am on the TODO list? :-)

because you`re contributing to GPLv2 only files? ;)

>   GPLv2 ->  GPLv2+   - NO
> LGPLv2 -> LGPLv2+   - NO
>   GPLv2 ->  GPLv2+v3 - YES
> LGPLv2 -> LGPLv2+v3 - YES
> KDE e.V. decides    - NO*

can you add yourself to trunk/KDE/kdesdk/scripts/relicensecheck.pl ? if you
commit it on your own it has at least a better proof of your identity than a
random mailing list posting ;)

> Btw, is "KDE e.V. decides" referring to the v3 clause allowing e.V. to
> allow a later version of GPL, or to allow /an arbitrary license/? Might
> want to make that clear...

this is not clarified yet, because KDE e.V. has not decided upon a policy. So
indeed it means "any arbitrary license". In the extremely unlikely event of
GPLv4 making it impossible for KDE to use its 3rd party components (Qt, X11,
others), we would have to use a different license. I would guess the chance
for that happening is close to zero, but thats the same like winning the
lottery. The most likely thing that would happen is that the e.V. formally
approves GPLv4 as an acceptable license and your contributions would be
automatically relicensed as GPLv4.



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

[Dirk Mueller-2]

On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Ingo Klöcker wrote:

> Frankly, I don't see why we should run again knowingly into exactly the
> same trap we are currently trying to escape from. I formally object
> against watering down the license policy by allowing "(L)GPL v2 or v3"
> just because a few people for whatever reasons trust neither the FSF
> nor the KDE e.V.

I think we can add

(L)GPL v2, v3 and FLA

to the list with no problem (assuming that we finish the FLA). But indeed, the
contributions that fail to meet any of those should fade out.


Dirk


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

On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Ingo Klöcker wrote:

> On Friday 23 November 2007, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:22:01AM +0000, Alex Merry wrote:
> > > There are also several that said v2+ but not v2/v3/e.v.  I'm not
> > > sure how we reconcile with those who say v2/v3/e.v. but not v2+
> > > if they worked on the same file...
> >
> > Just note that the file contains code under both terms, it'll come
> > down to the lower common denominator which would be v2/v3/e.v.
>
> No, it'll come down to the intersection of v2+ and v2/v3/e.v. which
> is {v2, v3, any v2+ license approved by the e.V.}. Relicensing under
> an arbitrary license approved by the e.V. would not be possible.

That's what the /e.v. bit means - it refers to e.V. acting as a proxy in
GPL v.3.  So the e.V can only use this to allow the code to be licensed
under future versions of the GPL.

We should probably make that clear to developers in this relicensing
programme...

Alex



--
KDE: http://www.kde.org
Ubuntu/Kubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.org http://www.kubuntu.org


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

On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:

> On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > Btw, is "KDE e.V. decides" referring to the v3 clause allowing e.V.
> > to allow a later version of GPL, or to allow /an arbitrary
> > license/? Might want to make that clear...
>
> this is not clarified yet, because KDE e.V. has not decided upon a
> policy. So indeed it means "any arbitrary license". In the extremely
> unlikely event of GPLv4 making it impossible for KDE to use its 3rd
> party components (Qt, X11, others), we would have to use a different
> license. I would guess the chance for that happening is close to
> zero, but thats the same like winning the lottery. The most likely
> thing that would happen is that the e.V. formally approves GPLv4 as
> an acceptable license and your contributions would be automatically
> relicensed as GPLv4.

The way we've been talking about it on this list, and the way the
licensing policy is written, it refers to future GPL versions.  In
particular, e.V. is listed in the copyright as the entity acting as the
proxy in GPL v.3, which only allows future versions of the GPL.

I don't think it's reasonable to require people to hand over complete
control of licensing to the e.V.  After all, if you're willing to let
the e.V. arbitrarily relicense your code at some point in the future,
why not just make it BSD now?

Alex



--
KDE: http://www.kde.org
Ubuntu/Kubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.org http://www.kubuntu.org


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

On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Alex Merry wrote:

> On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > > Btw, is "KDE e.V. decides" referring to the v3 clause allowing
> > > e.V. to allow a later version of GPL, or to allow /an arbitrary
> > > license/? Might want to make that clear...
> >
> > this is not clarified yet, because KDE e.V. has not decided upon a
> > policy. So indeed it means "any arbitrary license". In the
> > extremely unlikely event of GPLv4 making it impossible for KDE to
> > use its 3rd party components (Qt, X11, others), we would have to
> > use a different license. I would guess the chance for that
> > happening is close to zero, but thats the same like winning the
> > lottery. The most likely thing that would happen is that the e.V.
> > formally approves GPLv4 as an acceptable license and your
> > contributions would be automatically relicensed as GPLv4.
>
> The way we've been talking about it on this list, and the way the
> licensing policy is written, it refers to future GPL versions.  In
> particular, e.V. is listed in the copyright as the entity acting as
> the proxy in GPL v.3, which only allows future versions of the GPL.

Oh, and that's the understanding I (and, I suspect, others) had when
adding myself to the "v.2/v.3/e.V" list in the perl script.

Alex



--
KDE: http://www.kde.org
Ubuntu/Kubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.org http://www.kubuntu.org


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

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:33:16AM +0100, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Friday 23 November 2007, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
>
> > of the listed licenses, but only under certain combinations I would suggest
> > to change "must be licensed under the terms of any of the following
> > licenses" to "must be licensed under one of the following terms".
>
> I agree. Jonathan, a reason why you didn`t pick that up (am I looking at the
> wrong draft?).

Done now.

>
> > I would also suggest to add an "or" for the v2,v3 multiple licensing: "LGPL
> > version 2.1 or version 3 or later versions approved by the KDE e.V." That
> > makes it a bit clearer to me that there is a choice between all options.
>
> +1

Done.

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