kdelibs/khtml/misc

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Wednesday 04 February 2004 01:19, Frans Englich wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 February 2004 00:44, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 February 2004 13:36, Kazuki Ohta wrote:
> > > CVS commit by kzk:
> > >
> > > This is the more enhanced version of Japanese encoding detection
> > > code.
> > >
> > > The original one cannot detect UTF-8 correctly, so I improved
> > > this and now, KHTML can detect it.
> > >
> > > This routine(guess_jp) is derived from the one which is used in
> > > Gauche, the Scheme interpreter, and it is BSD licensed(so I
> > > include the copyright). I contacted Takumi
> > > Asaki(asaki at kde.gr.jp), who is the author of original code, and
> > > he said OK to commit this code.
>
> Is he the sole copyrighter? Did he say OK to license it under LGPL?
> If not, ask him again, otherwise I think the code will have to be
> ripped out.. (suck up to him, beg him :)

Kazuki will have to answer those questions. In his mail to 
kde-core-devel he wrote:
"This routine is used in "Gauche", the scheme interpreter. 
As soon as I found this routine, I wrote a patch for KHTML(attached to 
this mail). 
This code is BSD license and I contacted the author of this routine and 
he said ok to use in KHML unless copyright is in the source file."

(of course, he meant to write "provided" instead of "unless")

> > Is it actually possible to mix two licenses in the same file? Even
> > if it was possible then those parts of the file which are BSD
> > licensed must be clearly marked as such and must be clearly
> > separated from the LGPL licensed code. I suggest to put the BSD
> > licensed code into a cpp file of its own. The code should be pretty
> > much self-contained.
>
> But isn't BSD compatible with LGPL? If BSD code was relicensed under
> LGPL, would that break the BSD conditions? (IOW, is there really a
> problem?)

Only the author(s) of the code can change the license. Compatibility 
just means that LGPL licensed code and BSD licensed code can be linked 
together legally. It doesn't mean that you can copy&paste BSD licensed 
code into LGPL licensed code.

> > Apart from that I'd like to point out the following:
> > =====
> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
> > disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
> > with the distribution. =====
> >
> > I guess the copyright notice will have to be added to the API
> > documentation.
>
> Is that acceptable? AFAIK /all/ library code is released under LGPL
> and that is what people expect and assumes. Specific license
> conditions here and there would make the situation chaotic, me
> thinks. Not mentioning feeding all the FUD about KDE's license terms.

I don't know whether this clause is acceptable. But it doesn't seem to 
be a problem that parts of the library code are not LGPL licensed 
(running licensecheck on all source files in kdelibs is quite 
interesting).

Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20040204/8f8411f4/attachment.sig>