KDE Licensing Policy Updates

[Jaroslaw Staniek]

On 20 September 2016 at 22:00, Nicolás Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2016-09-20 16:53 GMT-03:00 Jaroslaw Staniek <staniek at kde.org>:
> >
> >
> > On 20 September 2016 at 21:42, Nicolás Alvarez <
> nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 2016-09-20 16:30 GMT-03:00 Jaroslaw Staniek <staniek at kde.org>:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 20 September 2016 at 21:19, Thomas Pfeiffer <
> thomas.pfeiffer at kde.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org>:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Added:
> >> >>>> ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be
> >> >>>> licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later
> >> >>>> Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL
> >> >>>> Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server
> >> >>>> software?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least
> recommended,
> >> >> because for an end user a web service based on GPL software is no
> >> >> better
> >> >> than one based on proprietary software, because they cannot tell what
> >> >> software it is they're interacting with. Therefore, the AGPL closes
> an
> >> >> important hole in FOSS web services.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense
> to
> >> >> at
> >> >> least recommend AGPL for web software we produce.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I see that too but also aren't we also limited here in one case: when
> >> > our
> >> > LGPL software is usable for services? What can we do with e.g. KF5?
> Move
> >> > it
> >> > to AGPL and add linking exception?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry if that's already solved some way.
> >>
> >> AGPL code can use GPL and
> >> LGPL libraries.
> >
> >
> > Sure but that's not the challenge.
> > Rather: can an AGPL library be dynamically linked to a proprietary
> binary?
>
> Certainly not. AGPL is like GPL in that sense, with the extra rule
> that you must publish the source code even if you're only giving
> access over the network and not distributing binaries.
>
> I don't think an AGPL library makes much sense though.
>

​ALGPL makes sense then :)
​

>
> --
> Nicolás
>



-- 
regards, Jaroslaw Staniek

KDE:
: A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators
: and facilitators committed to Free Software development - http://kde.org
Calligra Suite:
: A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org
Kexi:
: A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi
Qt Certified Specialist:
: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20160920/17262ca8/attachment.htm>