<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 17 May 2016 at 20:48, Hugo Pereira Da Costa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hugo.pereira.da.costa@gmail.com" target="_blank">hugo.pereira.da.costa@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
[snip]<span class=""><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Architecturally, the eventual solution would be that breeze.git becomes<br>
layered, and routines beyond what QStyle defines are provided by an LGPL<br>
lib. It worked with libOxygen that is LGPL.<br>
The reason for liboxygen was that part of Oxygen was also used by KWin<br>
decoration. We fixed that by moving the decorations together with the style<br>
into one repository.<br>
</blockquote></span>
liboxygen was also there to take care of code shared between the style and the decoration, but internal only, no headers exported, no so version, no abi, api stability guaranty of any kind. I have no clue how this could be used by the external world in any way.<span class=""><br></span></blockquote><div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small">It is, I explained it a bit. But anyway it's FOSS so explaining was not needed. I am not implementing frameworks or plasma so I am not obligated to rules or habits expressed here.<br></div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Personally I think liboxygen was rather a hack and an annoyance.<br>
</blockquote></span>
based on the above, I was seeing it as a "private" library, needed to avoid code duplication and ease maintenance between two parts of oxygen.<br>
As for the licensing of such a thing, no clue, but again, I never intended it to be re-used by any other code.</blockquote><div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small">Like above, do you agree it to be reused or not. I am not asking if you intend to use it, I am asking if you are OK/open with others using the code in other FOSS code.<br></div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Especially that QStyle is<br>
mostly just maintained. "Use QStyle and plugins" sounds almost like "use X<br>
"protocol instead of DWD"...<br>
Going LGPL is a first step for this being even considered as a task by a<br>
KDE contributor. Without that the easiest thing is to work downstream<br>
forking^w copying the design and such.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The request is about the freedom to use of the code from of the breeze<br>
style in LGPL code freely opening freedom for experimentation and<br>
</blockquote>
progress.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The design (by VDG) is free to use (LGPL I think), why wouldn't the<br>
implementation be free-to-link?<br>
</blockquote>
I repeat again: I object to a relicense of code I have written to GPL in<br>
the<br>
case of Breeze and Oxygen.<br>
</blockquote>
I see much of oxygen<br>
<br>
is BSD-like and LGPL of the change happened in with the Breeze.<br>
</blockquote>
I have here a file open oxygenstyleplugin.cpp which is licensed as GPL v2+.<br>
Thus the whole thing is licensed GPLv2+. Why the code is inconsistent licensed<br>
I do not know.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Probably me copying code around without caring much. I would agree to re-license all the part I wrote to GPL v2+.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small;display:inline">Cool but that was not my question</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small;display:inline">. I asked to relicense to LGPL so I don't need to reimplement the same bits of style for non-QStyle code. Or reuse artwork from GTK+.<br><br><br><br></div><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
best,<br>
<br>
Hugo<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Again what's wrong for you with libOxygen that is LGPL?<br>
</blockquote>
liboxygen is not lgpl licensed. Look for example at liboxygen/liboxygen.h. It<br>
has a GPLv2+ header, thus is GPLv2+<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
PS: If our tech was HTML and Qt Quick only, our styles would be LGPL<br>
clearly as these would be actually scripts and graphic/style files. Why<br>
would we have inferior situation just because we happen to use<br>
compilers?<br>
</blockquote>
I don't see what that has to do with it.<br>
</blockquote>
It means that styles for HTML and Qt Quick _and_ GTK+ Breze style have<br>
freedoms that Breeze actually lack just because the licensing choice. And<br>
that may or may not be a missed opportunity.<br>
</blockquote>
I just checked the folder qtquickcontrols - those files are unfortunately not<br>
licensed at all. This is clearly wrong.<br>
<br>
Concerning GTK+ Breeze style: the COPYING.lib says it's LGPL. So you also<br>
cannot just take parts of it. Though the individual files are lacking a<br>
copyright header.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Martin<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">regards, Jaroslaw Staniek<br><br>KDE:<br>: A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators<br>: and facilitators committed to Free Software development - <a href="http://kde.org" target="_blank">http://kde.org</a><br>Calligra Suite:<br>: A graphic art and office suite - <a href="http://calligra.org" target="_blank">http://calligra.org</a><br>Kexi:<br>: A visual database apps builder - <a href="http://calligra.org/kexi" target="_blank">http://calligra.org/kexi</a><br>Qt Certified Specialist:<br>: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek</a></div>
</div></div>