Licenses in kdelibs...

[Peter Antoniac]

On Thursday 02 October 2008 12:13:15 Terence Simpson wrote:
> > Hmm, yes. But don't you find a contradiction between the statement of the
> > kde- core-dev about kdelibs to be LGPL and the statement in the
> > kdelibs-packages to be GPL? Shouldn't it be stated there that unless
> > something else, here we have LGPL  as this is the license policy for
> > kdelibs?
> Changing it to be "Unless something else is mentioned, the code files in
> this package are under LGPL" is a bit pointless IMO because the license
> of the parts are already stated. Maybe it's something we could think
> about doing next time we package a new kdelibs version, but I wouldn't
> put much priority on it.

To me, it is not that pointless. If the kdelibs are released with a license 
policy LGPL I don't see why you should change it in the package, unless you 
feel that you did something there that is GPL. From an OSS dev. it doesn't 
matter, but for a OSV/ISV it might make a lot of sense to have LGPL vs GPL in 
that text. My question still remains, why is it GPL and not LGPL there? :D

Thanks,
Peter
-- 
 Peter Antoniac, PhD
 http://antoniac.name
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20081002/cd1a7f4a/attachment.sig>