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

[Laszlo Papp]

Hi Aaron,

>> > This is true of other GPL versions as well, so nothing really new.
>>
>> Sure, it is not new, but disadvantegous due to flexibility. Should one
>> decide one day to prefer code sharing, this limitation would block it;
>> at least in my current understanding.
>
> Relicensing is a possibility, and one that happens a fair bit in git.kde.org
> to allow for code sharing (GPL -> LGPL being the common change)

Yes, I agree. See my concern below.

> If we were to make a policy change, we could outline the challenges of GPLv3
> code in a largely-GPLv2-world in the policy page while still allowing creators
> to individually opt for it.

Yes, I was considering that as an alternative, too. That sounds a
reasonable option to me, I agree.

>> decides to go for GPLv3+, and then leaves the project, it is possible
>> that a rewrite would need to happen for the new people getting
>> involved to avoid the limitation of GPLv3 which is not present in
>> GPLv2. This would impose an additional overhead for the project.
>
> This is not limited to GPLv3, of course, but also GPL->LGPL (for instance).
> This is one of the reasons KDE e.V. introduced the FLA agreement, so that if
> people do go away we can continue to manage the licensing of the code within
> the boundaries set out (must be Free software, stick to the licenses in our
> policies, etc.) I hope that a large % of KDE community members have signed it
> by now as it resolves this exact issue.

Do we have some stats how many people signed it? It would be a measure
how achievable this is in the practice.

The problem is that it is not always possible to find all the
contributors, so we need to have a well-working FLA to ensure this, I
agree.

>> I would also like to note that making such a significant change in the
>> base values of KDE is more than just including a new project appearing
>> to have this license already in place.
>
> I honestly don't see the base value that is changed here: it's Free software,
> etc. It would be a change in application licensing policy.

By base value, I meant collaboration and code sharing. Apologies if I
had been unclear. If the FLA provides a reasonable solution for that,
I am happy with that. Are there efforts to make it even more apparent
in the process? Currently, I can push new code to KDE quite easily
without even hearing about FLA.

>> That being said, I am fine with exceptions for existing code to also
>> remain inclusive because I think that is also very important for KDE.
>
> +1
>
>> PS2.: There are further drawbacks of the license itself. I only
>> mentioned a small portion of it. Bottomley and T'So have cogent
>> arguments against GPLv3, too. Google for it, or just check out this
>> for starter: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/217
>
> Yes, the Linux kernel runs full-on into the patent and tivoization issues
> which make GPLv3 undesirable for them.

I am not sure this is completely Linux kernel specific, but sure.