Kritacolor library re-licensing

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Thursday 22 June 2006 02:17, Clarence Dang wrote:

>
> 1. Do you really want to prevent a closed-source application from simply
> linking to the Krita graphics library?
>
> 2. Isn't it sufficient to just keep the Krita graphics library open but
> allow closed-source apps to link?
>

I had the same discussion with David Faure a while ago. He argued that it 
would be nice to receive bug fixes from the companies who did closed source 
development based on an LGPL krita image library. Which I wouldn't get if 
krita's image lib were GPL.

However, I'm available as a professional software developer for working closed 
source applications for E120 an hour (my boss just bumped up my fee). I'm 
also idealistic enough to work on free software for free. I'm not fool enough 
to work on closed source software for free. I don't get warm fuzzies from the 
idea that company X might use my work for their prestigious closed-source 
application Y for free. 

No doubt commercial licensing terms can be worked out for krita's image 
library, for instance by estimating the worth using sloccount and determining
a realistic fee, the proceeds of which can then be used to further Krita, but 
it'd be a completely commercial thing, not charity.

> If your answer to 1. is yes, then a loophole for closed-source applications
> would be to "derive" from BSD KolourPaint, just to use the Krita graphics
> library :)

I think the exception would be worded to prevent it being applicable to 
derivations. And it would be something everyone would agree to.

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt 
http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20060622/ad426a5d/attachment.pgp