[kde-community] Tupi: Open 2D Magic

[Boudewijn Rempt]

No, the license is everybodies concern. If you want to share code from 
tupi with, for instance, Krita, the license has to be (L)GPLv2+, or 
compatible. Your license is your interface to the rest of the floss 
community.

But in fact, if you didn't have a clear (written, email is ok) OK from all 
previous developers as well as Monica (if they are copyright holders of
code currently in Tupi) to relicense to GPLv3, then you're already in deep
problems with your codebase.

Only if you have written all the code, every line, yourself, you can 
change the license to whatever you want, including dual or triple 
licensing.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Gustav González wrote:

> 2013/6/23 Adrián Chaves Fernández <adriyetichaves at gmail.com>
>
>       You just need to get every contributor so far to agree with the change.
> 
> 
> I would like to share with you a little story of the project, so you can help me to confirm
> whether I'm right or wrong of my thougths:
> 
> - KTooN is the father of Tupi or if you wish, Tupi is a fork of KTooN. I was part of the
> first project from the very beginning as technical consultant for free (2001/2002).
> From the first line of code, my co-leader (Monica Ortiz) was agree of using the GPL v2 for
> the project and it went like this until 2007.
> 
> During all that time, every developer of the project worked on it just for the money and all of
> them did it supporting the GPL v2 license just as a directive of Monica. As soon as our budget
> was spent, they left the project. The last two developers kept working on some of the code to
> use it for their college degree, but as soon as they got their degree, they abandoned the project
> and none of them care of it right now.
> 
> At 2010 I got back to the KTooN team, to rescue the project after (more or less) two years of
> inactivity. In that point, I was the only developer of KTooN and the first one without wage.
> 
> Looking for more people interested in the project, I decided to change the license from v2 to
> v3. When I asked to some of the developers about this idea, they didn't say anything about it
> and it has a lot of sense when you don't care of something.
> 
> Some months later, I got a strong disagreement with Monica, an as result and understanding
> that KTooN is a brand (with copyright) of the Monica's company, I decided to create a new
> fork of the project; that's when Tupi was born.
> 
> Since that time until today, the only active developer of the project was me. So, understanding
> that the other contributors always worked on the code using the GPL v2 license and that they
> don't care of KTooN right now, and lesser of Tupi, has any sense to ask them for this new change?
> 
> I mean, imagine this question: "Hey! remember when you were working for Monica and all you did
> was GPLv2 (for KTooN)? Well, now I'm going to change the license of Tupi back from v3 to v2, as
> it was when you were working on the project. What do you think?"
> 
> As far, as I can get it, the new change of the license is only of my concern. Am I wrong?
> 
> Thank you for your feed back and sorry for the long/boring tale ;)
> 
> --
> ============================
>   Gustav Gonzalez
>   xtingray at gmail.com
> ============================
>