[kde-community] KDE Relicensing Effort
marc.mutz at kdab.com
Tue Jul 28 07:23:30 UTC 2015
On Monday 27 July 2015 22:14:05 David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 27 July 2015 15:01:06 Marc Mutz wrote:
> > I meant that I prefer the "or later" clause to be present, not and don't
> > like a relicense to v-only.
> > No difference atm, only once there's a GPLv4, it will be automatically
> > permitted on v2+, but not on v-only.
> Right, but that's just a preference then, not a refusal for v-only.
Not really. I don't insist on it in code that I have only minor contributions
to, but I will probably insist on code that's originally by me, or to which I
otherwise have made large contributions.
> If one of the other contributors to a v2-only file says the opposite
> (v yes, v2+ no), then I would still be able to relicense that file
> to "v2 or v3", since that is allowed by your more permissive "v2+", right?
No. v2+ requires the "or later" clause to be present. v23-only requires it not
to be present. On is not a subset of the other. They are conflicting, and there
needs to be arbitration in any given library or app so that the library or app
as a whole can be relicensed to the same set of licenses.
> Otherwise the file would have to stay v2-only, which surely is worse
> in your book, right?
Sure, it's not what both licenser-holders wished for, but the only non-
Marc Mutz <marc.mutz at kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
KDAB - The Qt Experts
More information about the kde-community