Nabble - kde-licensing

twain.h in kdegraphics

2009-11-11T11:51:24Z

Hi,

A couple a days ago I checked the Krazy2 status of libksane in kdegraphics and
found a warning about twain.h. The file is a direct copy from www.twain.org.
The header in the file contains "All rights reserved" and a bunch of company
names, but the license on http://www.twain.org/license.shtm is more BSD like.

Could there be a problem with having this file in kdegraphics? If I don't get
any objections I will leave the file there, as it is only the API for Twain.

Regards,
Kåre Särs

PS. I'm not subscribed to the list.
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

Re: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0

2009-11-10T11:11:10Z

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 10:33:08PM +0100, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 seems to be DFSG compliant, would
> it be possible to add it as valid license for images in
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy?
>
> Lots of wikimedia common images are under this license and people keep sending
> them to me to be added to kgeography and i keep saying them we can't accept
> them, but i don't really see why we shouldn't.

I added this into the licencing draft. It also has the addition for
cmake modules to be BSD like.

If there's no complains in a week or so I'll copy it over to the policy.

http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft

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

Re: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0

2009-11-02T14:57:44Z

A Dilluns, 2 de novembre de 2009, Jonathan Riddell va escriure:

> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 10:33:08PM +0100, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 seems to be DFSG compliant,
> > would it be possible to add it as valid license for images in
> > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy?
> >
> > Lots of wikimedia common images are under this license and people keep
> > sending them to me to be added to kgeography and i keep saying them we
> > can't accept them, but i don't really see why we shouldn't.
>
> The two problems are distro acceptance and multiple licences making
> mixing impossible. If Debian is fine with it and no other distro has
> issues that could well be fine. Then we'd need a form of works to
> ensure it was only used on material which was unlikely to have any
> need to be mixed with other material, e.g. standalone images which are
> not icons (and certainly not code).

Seems fedora[1] is also ok with it and the fedora page says the FSF is ok with
it too, so i'd really want this to be added.

Albert

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_3

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

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

Re: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0

2009-11-02T14:18:22Z

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 10:33:08PM +0100, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 seems to be DFSG compliant, would
> it be possible to add it as valid license for images in
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy?
>
> Lots of wikimedia common images are under this license and people keep sending
> them to me to be added to kgeography and i keep saying them we can't accept
> them, but i don't really see why we shouldn't.

The two problems are distro acceptance and multiple licences making
mixing impossible. If Debian is fine with it and no other distro has
issues that could well be fine. Then we'd need a form of works to
ensure it was only used on material which was unlikely to have any
need to be mixed with other material, e.g. standalone images which are
not icons (and certainly not code).

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

Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0

2009-11-02T13:33:08Z

Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 seems to be DFSG compliant, would
it be possible to add it as valid license for images in
http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy?

Lots of wikimedia common images are under this license and people keep sending
them to me to be added to kgeography and i keep saying them we can't accept
them, but i don't really see why we shouldn't.

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

Re: About the license of L10n products

2009-10-13T10:00:17Z

Thanks a million for all answers.
However I'm not sure yet. I just want to make a glossary which
everyone can use freely.
It's not as simple as my wish. :(

The license issue is more complicate than making a glossary, but I'll
not give up.
Please give me more opinions and advices. Thank you, all :)

p.s I should contact to Software Freedom Law Center.

--
Regards,
JiHui Choi
----------------------------------------------------
http://Mr-Dust.pe.kr
http://GIMP.kr, http://OpenOffice.or.kr, http://Ubuntu.or.kr
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

Re: About the license of L10n products

2009-10-13T04:52:37Z

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:31, JiHui Choi wrote:

> 1. KDE and GNOME includes many projects. Does each project have their own license, or only projects which are published as a specific license like as GPL or BSD? For example, every L10n works on Launchpad are under BSD, aren't them?

a) Each project has its own license;
b) Historically, UI strings have been distributed under a plethora of licenses;

> 2. If each project has their own license for their L10n works, how can I handle those if I want

You need to go to the current, and in some instances, prior maintainer
of each l10n project for each program, to determine exactly which
licenses those strings are distributed under.

Note: It isn't uncommon for several (anywhere between two and ten)
different teams to provide l10n data for the same program.

> 3. Can I publish and share my glossary under GPL?

Perhaps. You'll need to verify that each string has been
distributed under the same version of that license.

> There are several licenses, for GNOME, KDE and GIMP are GPL, LGPL for OpenOffice, Firefox has MPL and BSD for Launchpad.

Depending upon the specific l10n team, you might find that the
translation strings have been licensed under more licenses than the
program, simply to maintain cross-project license compatibility.

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

Re: About the license of L10n products

2009-10-12T02:30:36Z

A Dilluns 12 Octubre 2009 05:31:10, JiHui Choi va escriure:

> Hello.
> My name is Jihui Choi.
>
> I'm trying to make a glossary for Korean amateur translators.
>
> I have some questions about the license. If you help me or introduce me
> someone who can help me, I'll really appreciate to you. :)
>
> 1. KDE and GNOME includes many projects. Does each project have their own
> license, or only projects which are published as a specific license like as
> GPL or BSD? For example, every L10n works on Launchpad are under BSD,
> aren't them?

KDE l10n guidelines can be found at
http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy point 6. You should contact
the korean kde team[1] to get a clarification of which of the allowed licenses
they are using or even to ask for relicense if the license they use does not
suit you.

> 2. If each project has their own license for their L10n works, how can I
> handle those if I want to collect them and reproduce something using them.
> I'm making a glossary using many L10n works from many projects.

You either pray for all the different licenses to be compatible or ask for
relicenses to the specific people that have contributed "non compatible"
translations

Albert

[1] http://l10n.kde.org/team-infos.php?teamcode=ko
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

About the license of L10n products

2009-10-11T20:31:10Z

Hello.
My name is Jihui Choi.

I'm trying to make a glossary for Korean amateur translators.
I collected a lot of files from KDE, GNOME, OpenOffice.org, Firefox, GIMP and
Launchpad of Ubuntu. Sources from
- GNOME : http://git.gnome.org/cgit/
- KDE : svn://anonsvn.kde.org/home/kde/trunk/l10n-kde4/ko
- OpenOffice.org : http://www.sunvirtuallab.com:32300/
- Firefox : ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0/linux-i686/xpi/ko.xpi
- GIMP : http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gimp/ http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gimp-gap/
- Launchpad : https://translations.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+language-packs

I have some questions about the license. If you help me or introduce me someone
who can help me, I'll really appreciate to you. :)

1. KDE and GNOME includes many projects. Does each project have their own
license, or only projects which are published as a specific license like as GPL
or BSD? For example, every L10n works on Launchpad are under BSD, aren't them?

2. If each project has their own license for their L10n works, how can I handle
those if I want to collect them and reproduce something using them.
I'm making a glossary using many L10n works from many projects.

3. Can I publish and share my glossary under GPL? If I can, which version
should I use, v3.0 or v2.0? There are several licenses, for GNOME, KDE and
GIMP are GPL, LGPL for OpenOffice, Firefox has MPL and BSD for Launchpad.
I wonder whether I can mix all these licenses and publish under a specific
license such as GPL.

I'd like to share my works under GPL or similar it and works with many people.
However, before that I think I should make to be clear about the license.
Here is my demo. http://gloss.mr-dust.pe.kr/

Please check my demo and help me. Thank you, all.

--
Regards,
JiHui Choi
----------------------------------------------------
http://Mr-Dust.pe.kr
http://GIMP.kr, http://OpenOffice.or.kr, http://Ubuntu.or.kr
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

Extending the licensing policy: BSD license for cmake files

2009-09-14T09:44:47Z

I edited the licence policy to include the requested requirement for
CMake files to be under the BSD and added the option for a three
clause BSD as that seems to be what is used.

http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft

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

Re: [kde-artists] Icons, licenses, sources etc.

2009-09-09T09:23:38Z

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:23:21 -0500
Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad@...> wrote:

> Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> > Does LGPL license require to publish sources for images, or it is
> > allowed to publish only bitmap results?
>
> I believe the best answer is that you have to publish whatever you
> modify. So if you take an existing png and paint on it in
> kolourpaint, you /might/ be okay publishing just the final png. But
> if you modify the original svg, I am pretty sure that makes the svg
> the "preferred source", which means you must publish that. Similarly
> if you use gimp, then you would need to publish the .xcf with all
> layers, etc.

ok. Where can I get svg source of KDE's icon? I'd like to use them in my
work...
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

Re: Extending the licensing policy: BSD license for cmake files

2009-09-05T14:41:46Z

Forwarding to kde-licensing@, which is where this discussion belongs.

On Saturday 05 September 2009 21:22:07 you wrote:

> On Saturday 05 September 2009, you wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Seems sensible to me. Do we have to put license text at the top of
> > every CMakeLists.txt file or is there a simpler alternative?
>
> I don't know if we have to do something about the CMakeLists.txt, this was
> primarily for the FindFoo.cmake files.
> This is what we currently have there:
>
> # Copyright (c) 2006, NAME, <email>
> #
> # Redistribution and use is allowed according to the terms of the BSD
> license. # For details see the accompanying COPYING-CMAKE-SCRIPTS file.

The (c) is pointless.

Really, the BSD license should be included wholesale. It's not that long, and
prevents any ambiguity. See
http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy#BSD_License for how it
should look.

Alex

--
Why have I got six monitors? Because I haven't got room for eight.
-- Terry Pratchett

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

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Ksokoban levels legal status

2009-08-23T10:11:10Z

Hello,

Ksokoban (a part of kde games that was dropped for KDE4) features
many levels from different sokoban implementations. There is a rather
chaotic and brief attribution in the AUTHORS file
( http://websvn.kde.org/tags/unmaintained/4/ksokoban/AUTHORS?
revision=713549&view=markup ).

Now I'm writing a sokoban game for KDE4. I want to reuse ksokoban's
levels. I don't feel quite comfortable with the legal situation of
those levels. It is unclear which levels are written by which party
and it is unclear whether those parties know that those works are
incorporated in software product distributed under GPLv2+.

Also, GPLv2+ requires each part of the source code to be marked with
clear copyright claim and a summary of GPLv2+ terms. Level data lacks
clear indication of who is the copyright owner.

I have contacted Anders Widell, ksokoban's author. I don't know if he
will respond and if he has any clarification. Meanwhile I want to
hear what do you think about this situation? How to clear the
licensing issues?

BTW, the game i'm writing is in playground/games/magazynier/ - go
check it out. It's playable late beta stage.

Best regards,
--
tadeusz andrzej kadłubowski
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

Re: Web development with Oxygen

2009-06-04T05:16:06Z

2009/5/9 Michael Howell <mhowell123@...>:
> I'm currently in the process of building a web page for a client. I would like
> to use the Oxygen-Icons on it.
>
> What do the licenses require if I want to do that?

Read the LGPL for full details but in summary an acknowledgement of
the copyright owner, and pointer to the LGPL should be sufficient.

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

Re: Licensing question about data for KStars

2009-06-04T04:13:32Z

Hi Jonathan

> > I got a response saying: "I have no problem with you using the SAC
> > data for the Kstars program. It was released with the rules that it
> > is not sold as a seperate item." There have been other instances where
> > the redistribution under GPL has been permitted (See
> > http://www.freelists.org/post/sac-board/Permission-Request,5 for
> > instance)
> >
> > 1. Is this permission sufficient, or is something more required to
> > redistribute the data
>
> They seem unclear on their own copying licence terms. Some of the say
> "public domain" which is great. Others say "no commercial use" which
> is not but the final message in the thread indicates this isn't the
> actual case.
>
> So the licence seems to be unrestricted use with acknowledgement,
> which is fine for KDE.

Sounds good. I included a patched catalog (made of their catalog and
KStars' old GPL licensed catalog) and released it under GPL with the
editor of the SAC catalog as one of the copyright holders. I also
mentioned that the data is used / released under GPL with permission.

> I'd recommend writing to them (again) to clarify though and maybe
> convince them to use the GPL directly, let me know if you want my help
> on a good phrase to send them.

It looks like they aren't much worried about licensing :). I'll write
them a mail recommending this.

> > 3. I also used the HyperLeda database, which is used primarily for
> > research purposes. They expect an acknowledgement in the following
> > manner:
> > http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/acknowledge.html
> > However, they do not specify any licensing terms. Would it be
> > appropriate to use their data in KStars?
>
> I don't see a download link for anything there, what actually gets
> included? It seems reasonable to infer that the intent is public
> domain with attribution but I would e-mail them to check.

The results of queries on their database is what I'd like to
include. HyperLEDA is one of the scientifically accepted standard
sources for data on astronomical objects. So their 'Acknowledgement'
policy mostly deals with use of the data in a scientific paper, for
example.

I tried sending them a mail, but didn't get any response. What I
wanted to know is - how will such a policy for scientific papers carry
through to software? Or will it carry through at all?

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

Re: Licensing question about data for KStars

2009-06-03T10:42:21Z

On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 08:30:12AM +0530, Akarsh Simha wrote:
> I got a response saying: "I have no problem with you using the SAC
> data for the Kstars program. It was released with the rules that it
> is not sold as a seperate item." There have been other instances where
> the redistribution under GPL has been permitted (See
> http://www.freelists.org/post/sac-board/Permission-Request,5 for
> instance)
>
> 1. Is this permission sufficient, or is something more required to
> redistribute the data

They seem unclear on their own copying licence terms. Some of the say
"public domain" which is great. Others say "no commercial use" which
is not but the final message in the thread indicates this isn't the
actual case.

So the licence seems to be unrestricted use with acknowledgement,
which is fine for KDE.

I'd recommend writing to them (again) to clarify though and maybe
convince them to use the GPL directly, let me know if you want my help
on a good phrase to send them.

> 2. Is it required that I assign the original author / editor of the
> original catalog as one of the copyright holders of the
> GPL-licensed catalog?

Yes, they still own the copyright.

> 3. I also used the HyperLeda database, which is used primarily for
> research purposes. They expect an acknowledgement in the following
> manner:
> http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/acknowledge.html
> However, they do not specify any licensing terms. Would it be
> appropriate to use their data in KStars?

I don't see a download link for anything there, what actually gets
included? It seems reasonable to infer that the intent is public
domain with attribution but I would e-mail them to check.

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

Web development with Oxygen

2009-05-09T15:39:58Z

I'm currently in the process of building a web page for a client. I would like
to use the Oxygen-Icons on it.

What do the licenses require if I want to do that?

--
Please do not send HTML mail. Please, if you forward email, clean off the
garbage. Thanks for making everyone's email experience more enjoyable.

Michael Howell
mhowell123@...

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

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Licensing question about data for KStars

2009-05-05T08:36:30Z

Akarsh Simha wrote:

> Hi
>
> In KStars, we've been using unreliable data for what we call 'deep-sky
> objects' (galaxies, star clusters, nebulae etc) because of licensing
> issues. I've been wanting to fix that.
>
> I wrote a mail to the editor of a popular database of deep-sky objects
> used by several software (many of them under GPL) about using it in
> KStars and re-distributing it under GPL. This was required because the
> documentation says that the "data is released for private use of
> anyone who wishes to use this database."
>
> I got a response saying: "I have no problem with you using the SAC
> data for the Kstars program. It was released with the rules that it
> is not sold as a seperate item." There have been other instances where
> the redistribution under GPL has been permitted (See
> http://www.freelists.org/post/sac-board/Permission-Request,5 for
> instance)
>
> 1. Is this permission sufficient, or is something more required to
> redistribute the data

it's redistributable, but I don't think it is compatible with kde policy on
licensing: http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy

> 2. Is it required that I assign the original author / editor of the
> original catalog as one of the copyright holders of the
> GPL-licensed catalog?

Giving proper credit is probably good, regardless.

> 3. I also used the HyperLeda database, which is used primarily for
> research purposes. They expect an acknowledgement in the following
> manner:
> http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/acknowledge.html
> However, they do not specify any licensing terms. Would it be
> appropriate to use their data in KStars?

Ask them for licensing terms.

-- Rex

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

Licensing question about data for KStars

2009-05-04T20:00:12Z

Hi

In KStars, we've been using unreliable data for what we call 'deep-sky
objects' (galaxies, star clusters, nebulae etc) because of licensing
issues. I've been wanting to fix that.

I wrote a mail to the editor of a popular database of deep-sky objects
used by several software (many of them under GPL) about using it in
KStars and re-distributing it under GPL. This was required because the
documentation says that the "data is released for private use of
anyone who wishes to use this database."

I got a response saying: "I have no problem with you using the SAC
data for the Kstars program. It was released with the rules that it
is not sold as a seperate item." There have been other instances where
the redistribution under GPL has been permitted (See
http://www.freelists.org/post/sac-board/Permission-Request,5 for
instance)

1. Is this permission sufficient, or is something more required to
redistribute the data

2. Is it required that I assign the original author / editor of the
original catalog as one of the copyright holders of the
GPL-licensed catalog?

3. I also used the HyperLeda database, which is used primarily for
research purposes. They expect an acknowledgement in the following
manner:
http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/acknowledge.html
However, they do not specify any licensing terms. Would it be
appropriate to use their data in KStars?

Currently, my proposed copyright notice looks like this:
# NGC/IC catalog (c) 2003-2009 by
# Jason Harris <kstars@...>, Akarsh Simha <akarsh.simha@...>
#
# This catalog was constructed from:
# 1. Saguaro Astronomy Club Deep Sky Database version 8.0 [Data used with permission] <http://www.saguaroastro.org/content/downloads.htm>
# 2. Other Public Domain Sources
# 3. We acknowledge the use of HyperLeda database for NGC 6218 and NGC 6334 <http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr>
#
# This catalog is released under the GNU General Public License:
# http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

TIA.

Regards
Akarsh
Maintainer, KStars.
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

svg-penguins license question

2009-05-04T09:02:28Z

Is the following license (below) going to be acceptable? The attribution
clause is added to comply with the Tux licensing. The original license
was GPLv2+. (I updated to v3 to take advantage of clause 7(b); is this
needed or should I leave the license at v2?)

Obviously the FIXME needs to be fixed; I'm waiting on the original
committer (coolo) to determine the appropriate copyright information for
Paris.

(I haven't committed anything yet; the original COPYING is here:
<http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdegames/libkdegames/carddecks/svg-penguins/COPYRIGHT?view=markup>)

==== COPYING
This vector deck was adapted from the original Penguins raster deck,
with elements of the Paris deck.

Copyright 2009 Matthew Woehlke <elided>

Paris deck Copyright FIXME PARIS COPYRIGHT FIXME

Original Tux artwork created by Larry Ewing, Simon Budig and Anja
Gerwinski; from <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tux.svg>.

The raster PySol deck was adapted from the Ace of Penguins 1.0.
http://www.delorie.com/store/ace/

Copyright 1998 DJ Delorie <elided>
Copyright 1998 Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer <elided>

This cardset is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of
the License, or (at your option) any later version.

In accordance with section 7(b) of GPL3, the following notice must
accompany any works which include the Tux graphic:
Original Tux artwork created by Larry Ewing, Simon Budig and Anja
Gerwinski.
====

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants...
...so long as it is black." -- Henry Ford

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

Re: [Kde-games-devel] Copyright notices

2009-04-21T05:04:58Z

On Tuesday 21 April 2009 07:32:27 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

> (AUTHORS files are pretty dubious; they need to be more than an amorphous list
> of names: they need to indicate who worked on what and when; just stick with
> in-file attribution for any non-trivial contribution)

Ok, that part is pretty clear now. But what about the About dialog?
Everybody seems to know what is NOT sufficient, but nobody said what
information we can write there?

One suggestion I like best was to drop the copyright notice there and
replace it with something like "use the source, luke".

That's a decision too big for kde-games-devel, though.

Many people might not care about issues that seem unimportant enough
to be safely ignored for years. But I feel strange with leaving a 1997
copyright notice there and cannot just change it to what comes to my
mind first.

Regards

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

Re: [Kde-games-devel] Copyright notices

2009-04-20T22:34:41Z

On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
> What about the KDE e.V. It is a legal entity. It can hold copyrights,
> right?

yes, KDE e.V. can hold copyrights.

> I mean, it would still be a lie, if the developers did not transfer
> their copyright to it, but at least it would not be meaningless (or would
> that be a bad thing, here?).

that's up to the contributor's to decide, but we have the FLA in place
specifically for those who wish to do this.

--
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software

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

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: kdelibs/klauncher license question

2009-04-20T11:54:57Z

On Thursday 19 February 2009 01:44:08 Michael Pyne wrote:

> The kdelibs/kinit/proctitle.{h,cpp} files are both licenses GPLv2+ instead
> of LGPL like the rest of kdelibs.
>
> In this case it is compiled into the executable kdeinit4 (not a library
> however). So that's kind of a mitigating factor, but is this desired? I
> guess really the question is does this fall into a "Source file that is
> part of a library with a public API which is part of KDE Platform" [1]?

It doesn't matter, because proctitle.{h,cpp} are only in an application, not a
library. Note that the D-Bus interface does not propagate the GPL, only
proper linking (in the compiler sense) does.

The reason it is under the GPL is that they come from another project (an FTP
daemon, if memory serves me correctly, though I'm not sure which one) that is
licensed under the GPL.

Alex

--
Why have I got six monitors? Because I haven't got room for eight.
-- Terry Pratchett

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

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: [Kde-games-devel] Copyright notices

2009-04-19T09:24:17Z

On Saturday 14 February 2009, Frederik Schwarzer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> how would it be to remove the word (or any sign for) "Copyright" from
> the About dialog?

Why? A copyright notice requires either the word "Copyright" or the
copyright symbol ©.

> I.e. replace "(c) 1997, John Doe" with just "1997-2009 The KDEGames
> Team" in every game. The Authors tab holds the specifics anyway.

If you want to do this then I'd write

Copyright 1997-2009 The authors of <name of application> (see Authors)

Clicking on Authors should open the Authors tab.

Then again, such a copyright notice might not be valid (e.g. because not
all authors contributed all of the time).

Ideally, the copyright notices shown in the About dialog would be
compiled automatically from the copyright notices of all source files,
e.g. through a script similar to scripty. This would be the most
correct and, at the same time, easiest way. The list of authors could
be compiled similarly.

Regards,
Ingo

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

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Academic Free License 2.1 + GPLv2+ code in kdelibs?

2009-03-28T15:10:42Z

On Saturday 28 March 2009, Albert Astals Cid wrote:

> A Dissabte, 28 de març de 2009, Ingo Klöcker va escriure:
> > On Saturday 28 March 2009, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > Hi, to sort a i18n problem in current solid i'd like to reuse
> > > some libhal- storage code, the "problem" is that the code is
> > > licensed under Academic Free License 2.1 + GPLv2+
> > >
> > > And that is not a listed license in
> > > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
> > > so i'd like to ask wheter it's ok even if it's not listed there
> > > (it seems noone really has problems linking to libhal) or if i
> > > should ask the author for permission to relincese under one of
> > > our approved licenses.
> >
> > According to
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLic
> >enses the Academic Free License 2.1 is incompatible with the GNU
> > GPL. Therefore I'd say the Academic Free License 2.1 is not ok.
>
> I think you did not undersand me, the code is both licensed under
> Academic Free License 2.1 AND GPLv2+

You asked "wheter it's ok even if it's not listed there" and I answered
that I do not think it's ok. With respect to the code also being
licensed under GPLv2+, we cannot incorporate code released under the
GPL into the LGPL licensed solid.

So, yes, you should ask the author to relicense the code under the LGPL.

Regards,
Ingo

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

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Academic Free License 2.1 + GPLv2+ code in kdelibs?

2009-03-28T12:14:28Z

A Dissabte, 28 de març de 2009, Ingo Klöcker va escriure:

> On Saturday 28 March 2009, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > Hi, to sort a i18n problem in current solid i'd like to reuse some
> > libhal- storage code, the "problem" is that the code is licensed
> > under Academic Free License 2.1 + GPLv2+
> >
> > And that is not a listed license in
> > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
> > so i'd like to ask wheter it's ok even if it's not listed there (it
> > seems noone really has problems linking to libhal) or if i should ask
> > the author for permission to relincese under one of our approved
> > licenses.
>
> According to
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
> the Academic Free License 2.1 is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
> Therefore I'd say the Academic Free License 2.1 is not ok.

I think you did not undersand me, the code is both licensed under
Academic Free License 2.1 AND GPLv2+

Albert

>
>
> Regards,
> Ingo

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

Re: Academic Free License 2.1 + GPLv2+ code in kdelibs?

2009-03-28T11:26:45Z

On Saturday 28 March 2009, Albert Astals Cid wrote:

> Hi, to sort a i18n problem in current solid i'd like to reuse some
> libhal- storage code, the "problem" is that the code is licensed
> under Academic Free License 2.1 + GPLv2+
>
> And that is not a listed license in
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
> so i'd like to ask wheter it's ok even if it's not listed there (it
> seems noone really has problems linking to libhal) or if i should ask
> the author for permission to relincese under one of our approved
> licenses.

According to
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
the Academic Free License 2.1 is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
Therefore I'd say the Academic Free License 2.1 is not ok.

Regards,
Ingo

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

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Academic Free License 2.1 + GPLv2+ code in kdelibs?

2009-03-28T10:27:10Z

Hi, to sort a i18n problem in current solid i'd like to reuse some libhal-
storage code, the "problem" is that the code is licensed under
Academic Free License 2.1 + GPLv2+

And that is not a listed license in
http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
so i'd like to ask wheter it's ok even if it's not listed there (it seems
noone really has problems linking to libhal) or if i should ask the author for
permission to relincese under one of our approved licenses.

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

Re: Using ISC-licensed code in a LGPL2 file

2009-03-12T13:47:35Z

On Thursday 12 March 2009, Jonathan Riddell wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:39:33PM +0100, Frank Roscher wrote:
> > Hello everybody!
> >
> > I've ported code from an application called EasyStroke to KHotkeys. Now, I don't want to commit this before making sure this won't cause any licensing problems in the future.
> >
> > The relevant file of KHotkeys is LGPL2, EasyStroke is under the ISC license:
> > http://github.com/thjaeger/easystroke/tree/master/LICENSE?raw=true
> > The author of EasyStroke gave me explicit permission to do this (being informed about the licenses), but I don't know if that is enough for the KDE project.
>
> This is an X11/MIT style licence which is fine for KDE.
>
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy#X11_License
>
> Any files which you add this code to should have a header along the
> lines of
>
> "This file includes code from EasyStroke, Copyright (c) 2008-2009,
> Thomas Jaeger <ThJaeger@...>"
>
> Then paste the rest of
> http://github.com/thjaeger/easystroke/blob/master/LICENSE?raw=true
>
>
> Jonathan
>

That's great, thank you very much for your help!
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

Re: Using ISC-licensed code in a LGPL2 file

2009-03-12T13:22:45Z

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:39:33PM +0100, Frank Roscher wrote:
> Hello everybody!
>
> I've ported code from an application called EasyStroke to KHotkeys. Now, I don't want to commit this before making sure this won't cause any licensing problems in the future.
>
> The relevant file of KHotkeys is LGPL2, EasyStroke is under the ISC license:
> http://github.com/thjaeger/easystroke/tree/master/LICENSE?raw=true
> The author of EasyStroke gave me explicit permission to do this (being informed about the licenses), but I don't know if that is enough for the KDE project.

This is an X11/MIT style licence which is fine for KDE.

http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy#X11_License

Any files which you add this code to should have a header along the
lines of

"This file includes code from EasyStroke, Copyright (c) 2008-2009,
Thomas Jaeger <ThJaeger@...>"

Then paste the rest of
http://github.com/thjaeger/easystroke/blob/master/LICENSE?raw=true

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

Using ISC-licensed code in a LGPL2 file

2009-03-12T12:39:33Z

Hello everybody!

I've ported code from an application called EasyStroke to KHotkeys. Now, I don't want to commit this before making sure this won't cause any licensing problems in the future.

The relevant file of KHotkeys is LGPL2, EasyStroke is under the ISC license:
http://github.com/thjaeger/easystroke/tree/master/LICENSE?raw=true
The author of EasyStroke gave me explicit permission to do this (being informed about the licenses), but I don't know if that is enough for the KDE project.

The fact that the ISC license requires a permission notice to be included that probably conflicts with the LGPL makes me itchy. At the moment I don't include this notice in my draft.
I'll paste the licensing/copyright notices as I have them at the moment at the bottom of this mail.

So, I really don't have a clue how to handle this.
How should the licensing text look? Should the special permission be mentioned there? Do we need further help from the developer of EasyStroke?

Thank you for your time.

----------
Current license text follows:

/*
Copyright (C) 1999-2001 Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...>
Copyright (C) 2008 Michael Jansen <kde@...>

This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
License version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.

This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
Library General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU Library General Public License
along with this library; see the file COPYING.LIB. If not, write to
the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor,
Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
*/

/*
Gesture matching code based on EasyStroke:
Easystroke is a gesture-recognition application for X11.
Copyright (c) 2008-2009, Thomas Jaeger <ThJaeger@...>
http://easystroke.sourceforge.net
*/
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

kdelibs/klauncher license question

2009-02-18T17:44:08Z

Hi all,

While looking into altering the behavior of executing .desktop files in response to the thread on it (and the LWN and slashdot stories) I came across what I believe is a mistake in licensing:

The kdelibs/kinit/proctitle.{h,cpp} files are both licenses GPLv2+ instead of LGPL like the rest of kdelibs.

In this case it is compiled into the executable kdeinit4 (not a library however). So that's kind of a mitigating factor, but is this desired? I guess really the question is does this fall into a "Source file that is part of a library with a public API which is part of KDE Platform" [1]?

klauncher itself is accessed over D-Bus and not linked to directly but it does provide library-like services to KDE applications (and is used as such by various code in kdelibs which *does* get linked in). So is this something that is wrong, technically correct but undesired, or desired licensing? (The other files in klauncher are licensed LGPL...)?

Regards,
- Michael Pyne

[1] http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy para. 3

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

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: licence policy update

2009-02-18T06:15:21Z

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Adriaan de Groot <groot@...> wrote:
> On Friday 13 February 2009 11:12:51 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> "All files must be in their preferred modifiable form, or alongside
>> the file which is the preferred modifiable form."
>
> Seems like a good addition; you could do a little e.g. list there as well, but
> that's not critical, as the notion of preferred modifiable form is present in
> the GPL license texts as well.

I think an e.g. list to make it explictly clear that PNGs need their
SVG or even their PSD. Its never really obvious how the GPL applies to
art. For purely pratical reasons its good policy to have the
"preferred modifiable form" always committed.

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

Re: licence policy update

2009-02-18T02:34:20Z

On Friday 13 February 2009 11:12:51 pm Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> "All files must be in their preferred modifiable form, or alongside
> the file which is the preferred modifiable form."

Seems like a good addition; you could do a little e.g. list there as well, but
that's not critical, as the notion of preferred modifiable form is present in
the GPL license texts as well.

--
Adriaan de Groot - Vice President, KDE e.V. (Legal Affairs)
- http://ev.kde.org/
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

Re: licence policy update

2009-02-17T07:25:17Z

Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> The licence policy currently says that files must be under a free
> licence but fails to say that they must be in source code form. In
> order to prevent anyone putting binary blobs without source code into
> SVN I'd like to add this to the policy
>
> "All files must be in their preferred modifiable form, or alongside
> the file which is the preferred modifiable form."
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft

I'd even go a step further and add some language about rebuildability, like:

"In the 'alongside' case, there must be clear instructions for how to
build using the preferred modifiable form."

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