LGPL for Breeze QStyle and qtquickcontrols?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:41:49 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 17 May 2016 at 20:38, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 6:23:10 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > > If you show me why it needs to be a framework and I agree with it,
> > > > I might be willing to consider to allow to relicense the code I wrote
> > 
> > for
> > 
> > > > it.
> > > 
> > > There's no request to make it framework from me. LGPLing Breeze does not
> > > automatically add obligation to create and maintain a framweork.
> > 
> > Especially
> > 
> > > that there are not widely declared use cases. It's just a way to get the
> > > same what was legal in the times of Oxygen and KDElibs 4.
> > 
> > Yes exactly! If you would present me reasons why it should become a
> > framework
> > I might see a need for it to have it LGPL. That is something I currently
> > don't
> > see. Thus I don't see a reason to change it to LGPL.
> 
> But there's no rule in KDE that LGPL code needs to form frameworks.
> No need to switch the topic... Adding a framework is a lot of
> responsibility I am aware of and I don't request more work from others.
> We had an agreement within KDE organization that there's not even rule
> that​ KDE projects have to use C++ or Qt. People can implement things in
> HTML or C# or Java. Unless licenses stay against it but I see no reason why
> would be that.
> 
> > Similar I don't relicense KWin to LGPL, just because there might be a
> > reason
> > later on.  When we split out code from KWin to KWayland we did the
> > relicense
> > as needed.
> 
> ​You see​, authors have the benefit of re-licensing when _they_ need.
> I am not the author and have to face unusual extensive testing of my
> reasoning.

You are asking me as a copyright holder whether I agree to a relicense. You 
have to convince me. To me the default licence is GPLv3+. Everything else 
means an exception to my personal view. You have to provide really good 
reasons to make me agree that this is needed.

So far I have not seen them. It is more a wishy-washy about you want to use 
some code. That's not a reasoning. Explain why you need it and explain it that 
makes sense with our overall KDE vision about applications not being part of 
Plasma and depending on Plasma. Especially: how do you want to achieve it 
without making applications depend on Plasma, which is nothing we want. Copy 
code? No way, for that I'm not going to agree to relicense.

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/20160518/c3767725/attachment.sig>