[kde-community] Request to join the Kde incubator for GCompris

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Thursday 13 February 2014 21:19:31 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Dijous, 13 de febrer de 2014, a les 13:42:15, Bruno Coudoin va escriure:
> > Le 13/02/2014 10:26, Jonathan Riddell a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:48:00AM +0100, Bruno Coudoin wrote:
> > >> I am the creator and main developer of the educational software
> > >> GCompris
> > >> (http://gcompris.net). It is released under GPL V3+. It contains about
> > >> 140 activities for children 2 to 10 years old.
> > > 
> > > It would be great to have GCompris join the KDE community.  Although
> > > I'll only agree to it if you promise not to change the name :)
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I did not mention that point and yes I agree with you, GCompris has
> > build a worldwide reputation under that name. Our users don't know and
> > don't care which underlying toolkit it is build on.
> > 
> > For those who don't know it, GCompris is a pun word, in French it is
> > pronounced 'j'ai compris' which means 'I have understood'. One may think
> > that the 'G' means Gnome or Gtk but the 'G' in GCompris means Gnu and I
> > forgot to mention that GCompris is officially a Gnu project:
> > http://www.gnu.org/education/edu-software-gcompris.en.html
> > 
> > > Our licence policy requires projects to be GPL 2+, this is simply to
> > > ensure an easy life when sharing code between projects in KDE.
> > > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
> > > 
> > > Would you be willing and able to relicence to GPL 2+?
> > 
> > The change to GPL 3+ was done to comply with the requirement of being a
> > Gnu project. As such it is not appropriate to go backward now.
> 
> As far as i see that leaves us with three options:
>  A) Say "No sorry" to GCompris because doesn't follow our licensing policy
>  B) Do an "ad-hoc" exception for GCompris
>  C) Change the Licensing Policy
> 
> A is obviously not what we want
> 
> B would mean the status quo would change the least but it'd also bring some
> problems like "Why exception for GCompris and not ADFASDC?"
> 
> So maybe it's time we think about adding GPLv3+ to the Licensing Policy?
> 
> What do you guys think?
> 
+1 let's get a proposal for updating the policy and discuss that.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20140214/fabc50e5/attachment.sig>