LGPL for Breeze QStyle and qtquickcontrols?

[Aleix Pol]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Hugo Pereira Da Costa
<hugo.pereira.da.costa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/18/2016 11:13 AM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 20:48, Hugo Pereira Da Costa
> <hugo.pereira.da.costa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> It is, I explained it a bit. But anyway it's FOSS so explaining was not
> needed. I am not implementing frameworks or plasma so I am not obligated to
> rules or habits expressed here.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> Like above, do you agree it to be reused or not.
>
> I would not agree with the library to be linked against because I do not
> want to provide the guaranties that goes with it (about ABI and API
> stability) or do not want to be held responsible for these to be broken. I
> do agree for people copying the code around and take over these
> responsibilities if they want.
>
> I am not asking if you intend to use it, I am asking if you are OK/open with
> others using the code in other FOSS 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+.
>>
>
> Cool but that was not my question
>
> .
>
> I know. And I did not agree to relicense to LGPL. I did agree with Martin
> about it being licenced GPL and agree to relicense the code I wrote to GPL.
>
> I am ok with the compile code being used as a plugin, and not to be linked
> against (because of the same responsibilities I do not want to take). I am
> ok with bits of code being copied and reused.
>
>
> I asked to relicense to LGPL so I don't need to reimplement the same bits of
> style for non-QStyle code. Or reuse artwork from GTK+.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>

This is very gratuitous confrontation.

To be honest, I still don't really understand what's the proposal and
we're going to the details already.

Note that this whole argument is moot if we talk about 3rd party free
software applications, so let's discuss about what we want before
discussing the changes we need.

Aleix