[kde-community] KDE Relicensing Effort

[David Faure]

On Sunday 26 July 2015 21:16:31 Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> 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
> sense.
> 
> - 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?

I think first interpretation is correct, since "v2 or v3" is a subset of "v2+".
But this is such a corner case that I would hope
nobody makes that choice.... Hmm, I see that two people did.
Marc, can you clarify what you meant in relicensecheck.pl when you said
OK for relicensing v2-only code to v2+ but not to "v2 or v3"?

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Working on KDE Frameworks 5