Kritacolor library re-licensing

[Michael Thaler]

Hi,

> You are mixing things up.
> They are developing for GTK. Not Gnome.  This is equivalent to people
> developing for Qt, not KDE.  With that little data point the 'prefer'
> falls down since there are many many people that Trolltech gets money
> from to develop for. Why do you think they just opened another office in
> Berlin?  Not because everyone is going for GTK, for sure :)

Indeed, if you search for jobs on monster.com (US) using "gtk" as keyword you 
find 19 jobs. With qt you find 95. Probably some of these are related to 
Quicktime, but still there are many more companies using Qt.

> The companies that are indeed developing for GTK have very different
> reasons for doing so. The free part has nothing to do with it. People
> that are actually in that scene told me so personally.

So what are these reasons? It would be interesting to know.

> Hang on; using LGPL explicitly grants them the option to NOT give us
> anything back.
> You just opened the door for them to walk out with all their toys. That
> can't be the idea here.

khtml is lgpl and it seems to work quite well. O.K., it is not the perfect 
example, because there were lots of quarrels between the OpenSource community 
and Apple, but I think at the end it turned out well.

Personally I am completely fine with the GPL, but I think Cyrille has a point. 
In an ideal world all Krita plugins would be Open Source, but if we want 
companies to write plugins for Krita, it would probably better to find a way 
that closed source Plugins can be used with Krita.

This is nothing new. The Linux Kernel is GPL, but there also is a need for 
closed source plugins (at least for many people, I try to avoid them).

Greetings,
Michael