Kritacolor library re-licensing

[Clarence Dang]

On Thursday 22 June 2006 16:36, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> 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. 

If you earnt the full E120 an hour, this might be true.  But the reality with 
any employment is that the employer is actually making much more money than 
the employee.  So in this case, you are actually writing closed source 
applications for largely the employer's benefit, not your's nor free 
software's...

> I'm not fool enough to work on closed source software for free. 

I'm simply encouraged by the small amount that has been LGPL'ed to adhere to 
KOffice rules.  But this seems contrary to your justifications for keeping 
code under the GPL.  Imagine if I wrote a KOffice application that wanted to 
depend on the Krita image library, would more be LGPL'ed then?

> > 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.

As Cyrille notes, this would unfortunately defeat the point of being BSD in 
the first place :(