<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
<br>
Sorry for taking time to answer this, it's an important topic that
needs wise reflexion.<br>
I have the same concern as Sven about relicensing to LGPL. I would
much prefer to get everything relicensed to GPL. And, wouldn't it
be easier since LPGL v2 gives the right to do it?<br>
<br>
(cf. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/">https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/</a> <br>
"... The Lesser
GPL, version 2, includes a provision that lets you alter the
distribution terms to the ordinary GPL, so that you can copy code
into
another program covered by the GPL. Version 3 of the Lesser GPL is
built as an exception added to GPL version 3, making the
compatibility
automatic." )<br>
<br>
Also as a side note, I can tell we have gcompris in both macOS and
iOS stores, and it is still GPLv3... I'm not sure how that happens
we're not kicked from there.. but anyway, we plan to stop using
those stores and make the new package for mac available on our
website like it was before.. (and probably leave iOS...)<br>
<br>
Timothée<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 08/01/2017 à 01:58, Wolthera a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN80MtFTJ4Do3HBW3ESAKk_irj7x-VCrraNzCV5HV6OCfhA3MQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>These situations use an amazingly untested construction
where there's a glue library that can link to GPL without
having the main plugin be forced to follow GPL. The same can
be said of MuseScore and VLC.<br>
<br>
</div>
Sven's concern is quite valid though. I think that we kind of
need to wonder whether questions about the appstore shouldn't
just be forwarded to the mailing list so that boud shouldn't
have to answer them, especially because I haven't come across
such questions myself, meaning that there's a significant chunk
of people who do know how to use it on OSX. The problem being
that people who don't are about computer literate enough to mail
the foundation email but not use the 20 other places they could
ask about this. For OSX, the only thing I am really worried
about is signing of OSX packages, because if that becomes
mandatory we might as well give up.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 10:01 PM,
Paragon <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:french.paragon@gmail.com" target="_blank">french.paragon@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Blender and Natron are under a GPL license but there
are comercial plugins for both of them. (And even
commercial "forks" of blender, or at least builds of
blenders that are sold with a commercial closed
software, like vray). So I don't think relicensing under
lgpl will change much on this case. Tell me if i'm wrong
???</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="m_2302276371515168143moz-cite-prefix">Le 07.
01. 17 à 21:37, Sven Langkamp a écrit :<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at
10:13 AM, Boudewijn Rempt <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="m_2302276371515168143moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org"
target="_blank">boud@valdyas.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Umpteenth draft of this mail, but I think we
should consider relicensing<br>
the GPL code in Krita to LGPL.<br>
<br>
One reason is that now that Krita is on its
own, the mix of LGPL library<br>
code inherited from koffice/calligra and GPL
library code inherited from<br>
Krita makes it hard to move code around;
like we just did in the svg<br>
branch, creating the kritacommand library
from code from krita/image<br>
and libs/kundo2. That code needs to be
relicensed to LGPL before we<br>
merge the branch, of course.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We could go to GPL for the complete
repository and never have to relicense
anything again. It also doesn't happen that
often that files need to be moved across
libaries and I have done some relicensing
for this in the past.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Another
reason is that there are too many macOS
users who get confused<br>
when they install an application that's not
in the app store, and we<br>
cannot publish GPL software in the app
store. I wish I could just shrug<br>
that off, and I've done that until 3.1, but
it's getting quite a<br>
support burden.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is somewhat of a grey area. At least
the FSF thinks that even the LGPL isn't
compatible with the App Store.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/left-wondering-why-vlc-relicensed-some-code-to-lgpl"
target="_blank">https://www.fsf.org/blogs/<wbr>licensing/left-wondering-why-<wbr>vlc-relicensed-some-code-to-<wbr>lgpl</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>VLC did the same relicensing and is in
the App Store, so it works for now. But I
wouldn't bet on that for the future.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Beside that I don't like that Apple
indirectly dictates our licensing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> I
haven't found a script yet that will figure
out who owns copyright<br>
on the original GPL'ed krita code only --
running things like git fame<br>
only works on the whole repo, most of which
is LGPL already...<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm remain sceptical about this for now.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is another issue that should be
considered. Due to the heavy use of plugins
in Krita it would become very easy to extend
Krita with closed-source plugins. Pratically
is would be possible to make a close-source
version on top of the existing code. This
may sound hypothetical, but we had this in
the past were the license prevented a
commercial fork. Do we allow that? I think
that's something that should at least be
considered.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Wolthera</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>