[Kde-pim] On relicensing

[Adriaan de Groot]

Allen, thanks for starting that Relicensing approval thread on -pim. I don't 
know what triggered it, but it looks reasonable. I'll put in a few comments, 
though:

- do you strictly note which work you've done with which hat on in the KDE 
codebase? if so, I'd expect copyright headers like the following:

	Copyright 2010 by Allen Winter <your.email at kde.org>
	Copyright 2010 by KDAB <contact.email at kdab>
		Author Allen Winter

at least in files you've touched in both capacities. The former because it's 
you, the latter because your work - work is owned by KDAB (assuming fairly 
standard contract terms). However, you may retain some rights of authorship in 
the code -- that why we'd ask you to put in an Author line as well.

- do you have an FLA on file with the KDE e.V.?
- is all the code you have written with your personal hat on in kde-pim thus 
far under the GPL (any version?) That would make the blanket relicense grant 
easier to execute.

- it would be easiest if you marked those parts / files where your contribution 
is to be LGPL as such: that is, you would end up with

	<copyrights>

	<gpl license information>

	The portion of this file which is copyright Allen Winter may be licensed 
under the LGPL. The file as a whole remains under the GPL.

- There's some tricky issues, perhaps, on whether you are even able to make 
the declaration you're making: after all, if your work is a derivative of 
something else which was GPL licensed, then clause 2b (GPLv2) says you must 
choose the GPLv2 as the license. But that's just me finding annoying corner 
cases, not something relevant right now. Nonetheless, I'm going to check with 
the lawyers.

So all in all, good to have this on file.

[ade]


_______________________________________________
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/