LGPL for Breeze QStyle and qtquickcontrols?

[Jaroslaw Staniek]

On 9 May 2016 at 07:53, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:

> On Saturday, May 7, 2016 10:10:50 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Is relicensing Breeze QStyle to LGPL from GPL for possible and
> acceptable?
> > I've found cases when bits of the code beyond QStyle/KStyle API need
> > to be reused. One example is: custom widgets.
> > If we're considering Breeze QStyle as implementation of certain
> > artwork, and KDE artwork in general would be LGPL also for
> > consistency.
> > For example wallpapers, icons are LGPL.
> >
> > Similarly I can only deduce that breeze/qtquickcontrols/* is GPL now,
> > it's not clear in breeze.git. The same question here: can it be LGPL
> > or BSD?
> >
> > Bottom line is: if we want to popularise our frameworks in the outside
> > world...
>
> I fail to follow you why Breeze QStyle should be a framework. No framework
> should depend on it, Breeze QStyle is a plugin and it's only getting
> loaded by
> either setting an env variable manually or using the Plasma QPT plugin
> which
> is not in Frameworks either.
>

​Not only KF5 is LGPL. ​Also other libraries and also parts of individual
apps.
BTW: The latter help to create frameworks in the future (picking GPL too
early kills the idea).


>
> Anyway on the question of whether to relicense to LGPL you should ask the
> copyright holders and I doubt you found them here on frameworks-devel as
> Breeze is not a framework. I'm one of the copyright holders and as I don't
> understand why you want it relicensed I would not agree to it. I think GPL
> is
> the proper license for our workspace components.
>
>
I'd like more explanation to know if you disagree just for the sake...
Don't you agree with LGPL for breeze or oxygen icons?

Styles are in *the same* group. They make-our-user-experience.

Icons are part of the KF5 product [1] which does not mean libraries depend
on them
https://www.kde.org/announcements/kde-frameworks-5.22.0.php
(well I believe as a product they depend but that's out-of-the box level
thinking not belonging here)

Do you then agree with relicensing after my explanations here and in the
other email?

The request is about the freedom to use of the code from of the breeze
style in LGPL code freely opening freedom for experimentation and progress.
The design (by VDG) is free to use (LGPL I think), why wouldn't the
implementation be free-to-link?

PS: If our tech was HTML and Qt Quick only, our styles would be LGPL
clearly as these would be actually scripts and graphic/style files. Why
would we have inferior situation just because we happen to use compilers?


​


> Cheers
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
> Kde-frameworks-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
>
>


-- 
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-frameworks-devel/attachments/20160517/8222c124/attachment.html>