[kde-community] KDE Relicensing Effort

Nicolás Alvarez nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com
Mon Jul 27 00:16:31 UTC 2015

2015-07-26 19:01 GMT-03:00 Boudhayan Gupta <me at baloneygeek.com>:
> On 27 July 2015 at 01:23, David Faure <faure at kde.org> wrote:
>> On Saturday 21 February 2015 11:42:52 Dominik Haumann wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> some time ago, a relicensing effort was started to allow us also using
>>> the [L]GPLv3 [1]. The linked script (I just blogged about it again [2])
>>> indeed helped a lot when checking Kate's source code, for instance.
>>> 1. Please add yourself to this script, if you have not done so.
> I'm not clear about something: Doesn't gplv2+ and lgplv2+ imply gplv23
> and lgplv23 respectively? What is the difference between GPLv2 or
> later and GPLv2 or GPLv3?
> If I mark myself as "gplv2+ lgplv2+ +eV", what rights am I not giving to KDE?

I see two possible interpretations:

- Maybe gplv2+ implies gplv23, so your choice is actually between "no
relicensing out of v2" or "gplv23: I allow v2 or v3", or "gplv2+: I
allow any GPL version", and saying gplv23:no gplv2+:yes doesn't make

- Or maybe gplv23:no gplv2+:yes means you agree with KDE relicensing
to "GPLv2 or *any* later version", but you don't give KDE the right to
relicense as "*only* GPLv2 or v3" which would forbid eg. the GPLv4
possibility; you explicitly want GPLv4 to be allowed.

I don't know if I'm being clear :)

Can someone confirm which of the interpretations would be correct?


More information about the kde-community mailing list