KDE Licensing Policy Updates

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:42:55PM +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2016-09-20, Jonathan Riddell <jr at jriddell.org> wrote:
> > Differences:
> > Removed
> > "code may not be copied from Qt into KDE Platform as Qt is LGPL 2.1"
> > Rationale: Qt is now LGPL 3 as well as 2
> 
> Qt is not LGPL2.1 in general. As long as we want to be LGPL2.1 compat,
> we can't copy code from Qt.

OK, I've reinstated that sentence but swapped versions to say:
 Note: code may not be copied from Qt into KDE Platform as Qt is LGPL 3 only which would prevent it being used under LGPL 2.1

> > 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?
> 
> Not a requirement. Just like we don't have copyleft requirements
> anywhere.
> 
> And it should also be specific to things on a web server.

I've updated it say to 'web server'.

> > Added:
> > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be
> > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0
> > International."
> 
> Again, I don't think we should force copyleft.

I've added "or compatible licence".  All our current wikis are CC-BY-SA 3.0.

> > Changed:
> > "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons
> > Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International"
> 
> Also here. No need to force copyleft.

The previous requirement was the copyleft GNU FDL so there's no change
there.  I've added "or compatible licence". I've also added a note
"Note: CC-BY-SA 4.0 can be converted to LGPL 3."

> > Removed:
> > Standalone media files CC 4.. "This does not apply to icons or
> > anything which is likely to be mixed with content under our normal
> > (GPL etc) licences."
> > Rationale: CC 4 is compatible with GPL 3 which is the licence of
> > Breeze icons anyway.
> 
> I want my icons licensed under the same terms as my application. Even
> when my application is more liberal licensed than GPLv3.

It's just an option, same as before, I just changed CC 3 to CC4 which
allows for more compatibility with GPLv3 licenced works.  I've also
removed the requiment for the files to be "standalone" as with CC4
being compatible to GPL 3 they can be mixed with code if it's a GPL3
project.

https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies%2FLicensing_Policy%2FDraft&type=revision&diff=74119&oldid=74112

Jonathan