[Kde-pim] License change.

[Tobias Koenig]

On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 01:39:22PM +0200, Daniel Molkentin wrote:
> Am Samstag 23 Juni 2007 schrieb Ingo Klöcker:
Hi Daniel,

> > I don't think 1) is an option for the crypto stuff (but you can of
> > course ask Marc :-) ). I am very much in favor of 3).
> 
> Sorry, but I think this is insane. Creating a module just for the sake of the 
> license...
ACK, a new module just doesn't make sense.

> What is the deal with relicensing the stuff under LGPL anyway? 
> They are libs, and they were always meant to be.
Right, nevertheless that doesn't mean that they have to be LGPL licensed
at all. Using LGPL just means that propritary software can link against
them, using GPL is fine for 100% of the KDE application using them.

Richard Stallman made a good separation: If your library brings new
value which makes GPL software better than propritary software then use
GPL, so people will be forced to use free software if they want to
profite from this feature. However if the library just implements some
common standard (e.g. a xml parsing library etc.) then use LGPL, as
propritary software developers can choose here between the free and one
of the thousands of propritary libraries anyway.

> Marc, what are your objections?
So Marc, what do you think? Is libkleo & Co. worth to be GPL only?

Ciao,
Tobias
-- 
Separate politics from religion and economy!
The Council of the European Union is an undemocratic and illegal institution!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-pim/attachments/20070624/b3b527db/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim at kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/