LGPL for Breeze QStyle and qtquickcontrols?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 1:29:51 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 6 June 2016 at 13:04, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 6, 2016 12:17:11 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > On 30 May 2016 at 17:11, Michael Pyne <mpyne at kde.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 14:42:43 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 11:24:52 PM CEST Michael Pyne wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 14:53:54 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > > > > > All in all, If nobody just noted an issue with the licensing
> > 
> > above
> > 
> > > > maybe
> > > > 
> > > > > > > nobody tried to place/distribute a non-GPL software on top of
> > > > > > > Plasma?
> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > would be the worst news of all to me.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Please speak up someone else because it's a matter of KDE, not
> > 
> > just
> > 
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > single desktop shell. Maybe some voting fits here.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I've only been able to keep track of the margins of the thread but
> > 
> > I
> > 
> > > > will
> > > > 
> > > > > > admit that it seems surprising that we would use code licensing as
> > 
> > a
> > 
> > > > means
> > > > 
> > > > > > to either enforce the exclusiveness of Plasma's artwork above and
> > > > 
> > > > beyond
> > > > 
> > > > > > the existing license for the artwork, or to prevent applications
> > > > 
> > > > running
> > > > 
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > KDE frameworks (but outside of Plasma) from supplying an
> > 
> > alternative
> > 
> > > > > > KDE-authored QStyle.
> > > > > 
> > > > > heh, that's certainly not the case here. This is not trying to force
> > 
> > our
> > 
> > > > > style to be only used in Plasma. That would be a ridiculous stance
> > 
> > from
> > 
> > > > my
> > > > 
> > > > > side.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I want to have my code stay GPL. I don't think that the breeze code
> > > > 
> > > > needs to
> > > > 
> > > > > be licenced in a way that it can be copied into 3rd party
> > 
> > applications.
> > 
> > > > > That's all. It has nothing to do with enforcing anything, it's just
> > > > > about
> > > > 
> > > > ​​
> > > > ​​
> > > > t
> > > > ​​
> > > > he
> > > > ​​
> > > > actual implementation should stay GPL in my opinion.
> > > > 
> > > > Alright, my apologies for misunderstanding and then misrepresenting
> > 
> > your
> > 
> > > > position. Certainly
> > > > ​​
> > > > code licensing is every developer's choice to make, and
> > > > I'm not sure of better ways than what you're doing to avoid
> > > > third-party
> > > > apps
> > > > from easily cloning the code behind the style (even if it means more
> > > > difficulty for non-GPL KDE apps outside of Plasma).
> > > 
> > > ​
> > > Please let me repeat​ (and cover this and any potential similar cases in
> > > the future): this blocking avoids *any* reuse for non-GPL code no matter
> > 
> > if
> > 
> > > via copying or linking (either via private APIs, eventually
> > > framework-ify
> > > that _if_ it pays off). It's hard to assume Martin did not
> > 
> > read/understand
> > 
> > > my explanation of the use cases and the technicals.
> > > 
> > > ​Since when LGPL (versus GPL) decrease code reuse?​ Conversely, GPL
> > > means
> > > less chance for collaborating on shared code.
> > 
> > If you really want to be able to reuse the code as one wishes it needs to
> > be
> > MIT/BSD licensed. Otherwise it's just working for your personal use case
> > that
> > your LGPL based application (or whatever) can use it.
> > 
> > Making the code LGPL won't fix the "problem" of not reusing the code. I'm
> > not
> > open to discuss changing the licence away from GPL due to that. LGPL won't
> > solve the problem and BSD style license I'm not comfortable with.
> > 
> > If the code were a library (which it isn't) LGPL could be an option. But
> > it
> > isn't and nobody wants to turn it into a library. It's a mood point.
> > 
> > Sorry to having to deny your relicence request. I want my code
> > contributions
> > to be GPL by default, LGPL is for me already a hard exception which must
> > have
> > strong understandable reasons (like a library one wants to use, which
> > breeze
> > isn't).
> > 
> > Btw. I'm very unhappy with the level of pressure you are exposing here by
> > bringing it up again and again.
> 
> I am done with that then -- I was one who also worked a bit on debugging
> the lib code, like many others do.
> 
> I'd be happy to see the "defaulting to GPL" rules specified officially by
> some document by KDE, this helps to make decision about contributing.

Please check: https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy

I think what I express is fully compatible with the licensing policy. Btw. I 
didn't choose the licence for Breeze.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20160606/8a2e35ec/attachment-0001.sig>