<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 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 href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org" target="_blank"></a><a 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 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>