Krita source & library layout reorganization

[Clarence Dang]

On Thursday 04 August 2005 22:31, Bart Coppens wrote:
> On Thursday 04 August 2005 14:09, Clarence Dang wrote:
> > One thing I keep forgetting to bring up: You need to double check the
> > licenses of some of the files you intend to put in your core image
> > library. From memory, some of them are either GPL or QPL, not LGPL.  This
> > is bad for closed source apps and also BSD licensed programs such as
> > KolourPaint. One piece of code that comes to mind was either the tablet
> > or smooth painting patch which was derived from QPL code but there was
> > more.
>
> I am not a lawyer (so don't believe a word from what I say on licensing
> issues, etc.),

I'm not a lawyer either but:

> but from what I understand, this is not really an issue for 
> any BSD-style Qt application since it will link to a GPLed Qt library

I interpret Qt under the QPL to prevent GPL infection of the KolourPaint BSD 
code.  This means I cannot close source the current version of KolourPaint 
(QPL restriction).  However, if anyone were to buy a commerical licence from 
Trolltech, any changes they make to KolourPaint can be closed source (BSD 
allows it, QPL does not apply to changes due to commerical Qt licence) so 
effectively their fork of KolourPaint is closed source.  This is not possible 
if I interpreted Qt under the GPL due to viral nature of it.

> (and 
> from what remember BSD-style licenses should normally be GPL compatible).

Yes, I can incorporate the modified-BSD-license code into a GPL program.  The 
original BSD license had a 4th clause that wasn't compatible with the GPL.  
But linking GPL code with a BSD program makes my program GPL.

> Pure QPL pieces are not so fine since from what I remember it isn't really
> GPL-compatible. 

IIRC, AFAIK that is only some technicality with free binary packages made 
using the free X11 Qt.

> remember there being a kde-legal mailinglist, but I have no idea if that's
> an active list or so.

kde-licensing appears dead :(