LGPL for Breeze QStyle and qtquickcontrols?

[Hugo Pereira Da Costa]

Hi,

[snip]
>
> ​Architecturally, the eventual solution would be that breeze.git becomes
> layered, and routines beyond what QStyle defines are provided by an LGPL
> lib. It worked with libOxygen that is LGPL.
> The reason for liboxygen was that part of Oxygen was also used by KWin
> decoration. We fixed that by moving the decorations together with the style
> into one repository.
liboxygen was also there to take care of code shared between the style 
and the decoration, but internal only, no headers exported, no so 
version, no abi, api stability guaranty of any kind. I have no clue how 
this could be used by the external world in any way.

> Personally I think liboxygen was rather a hack and an annoyance.
based on the above, I was seeing it as a "private" library, needed to 
avoid code duplication and ease maintenance between two parts of oxygen.
As for the licensing of such a thing, no clue, but again, I never 
intended it to be re-used by any other code.
>
>> Especially that QStyle is
>> mostly just maintained. "Use QStyle and plugins" sounds almost like "use X
>> "protocol instead of DWD"...
>> Going LGPL is a first step for this being even considered as a task by a
>> KDE contributor. Without that the easiest thing is to work downstream
>> forking^w copying the design and such.
>>
>>>> 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?
>>> I repeat again: I object to a relicense of code I have written to GPL in
>>> the
>>> case of Breeze and Oxygen.
>> I see much of oxygen​
>>
>> ​is BSD-like and LGPL of the change happened in with the Breeze.
> I have here a file open oxygenstyleplugin.cpp which is licensed as GPL v2+.
> Thus the whole thing is licensed GPLv2+. Why the code is inconsistent licensed
> I do not know.

Probably me copying code around without caring much. I would agree to 
re-license all the part I wrote to GPL v2+.

best,

Hugo

>
>> Again what's wrong for you with libOxygen that is LGPL?
> liboxygen is not lgpl licensed. Look for example at liboxygen/liboxygen.h. It
> has a GPLv2+ header, thus is GPLv2+
>
>> ​
>>
>>>> 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?
>>> I don't see what that has to do with it.
>> It means that styles for HTML and Qt Quick _and_ GTK+ Breze style have
>> freedoms​ that Breeze actually lack just because the licensing choice. And
>> that may or may not be a missed opportunity.
> I just checked the folder qtquickcontrols - those files are unfortunately not
> licensed at all. This is clearly wrong.
>
> Concerning GTK+ Breeze style: the COPYING.lib says it's LGPL. So you also
> cannot just take parts of it. Though the individual files are lacking a
> copyright header.
>
> Cheers
> Martin