Kritacolor library re-licensing

[Cyrille Berger]

> > Making the conclusion that companies want to sell plugins for gimp
> > instead of for krita, right?  Why is that a problem, exactly?
Maybe it's not a problem if gimp get all the attention, I don't know. The one 
advantage of being less known is that we get less bashing and annoying people 
who come to tell us how we should do things :D

> Why is it a problem when there are companies that want to sell
> closed-source plugins for Krita, making money off of our hard work?
It becomes a problem if a company add three small values plugins, and add a 
piece of code that prevent copy of krita (not the plugin themself the whole 
app), call it Painter Plus Ultra Cool and sell the whole box 1000$ (believe 
me it happens with some successfull open source of software, except that in 
the case I know they only bother to change the name of the apps). That would 
be a problem, but GPL or LGPL or GPL with exceptions won't prevent this to 
happen.

But if a company develops in his own time, putting a large amount of effort to 
develop a very cool plugin for Krita. I won't see that as a thief of our hard 
work.

My involvement with Krita is not for free, sure I don't receive money for 
that, but is all about money ? My choice was to be paid not in money, but in 
becoming part of community, receiving contribution to my code from other 
people, having people ready to answer technical question for free, talk about 
design, etc... But I can really imagine someone preferring to get money 
instead of that. And if a company contact me, to get help, they will have to 
give something back to me or krita, either money or code. That's my vision 
and my personal opinion,  you may agree or not :)

> Do we really need those companies to make Krita a success?
no, but it can help.

> Before you answer; search for photoshop plugins and note how many there
> are which are created by professional companies versus versions that are
> shareware or any of the other almost-free licenses that are common on
> Windows.
To get the Photoshop SDK, you need to pay a membership fee of 200$, not that 
expensive for shareware, but your request to get it has to be accepted by 
Adobe ! And last but not least, you have to sign a NDA. Those things must 
have discourage a lot of people.

> Also note that Gimp has plenty of plugins. 
The question is not to get plenty of plugins, it's to get advertisement and or 
have company provide support for krita.

> Jumping to the conclusion that we will not have plugin writers _because_
> of the license seems premature. I don't see any evidence of that.
> And I think that should be well established before any suggestion is made
> to change the license.
Once we can't change it, because some of the developers are gone ?

PS: I didn't say that GTK get more use than Qt outside the open source world, 
but that "Gnome" gets more support from companies than "KDE" and maybe the 
truth is hidden in all slashdot's like site and that they only publish about 
the link between Gnome and corporate, and hide all news related to KDE.
-- 
--- Cyrille Berger ---