GPL v2+, GPL v2, GPL v3, LGPL v2, LGPL v2+ ?

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Tuesday 05 September 2006 22:55, Cyrille Berger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some of you might (some have) noticed that I have moved some of my new
> files in 1.6 to GPL v2 (instead of v2+) for the simple reason that I don't
> like the GPL v3 (I allready think that the GPL v2 is imposing too much
> restriction), but as pointed out by Bart, the GPL v3 is incompatible with
> v2, so that would mean that this change prevent any use of GPL v3 in krita.
> (while I don't see this as a big problem, I would hate to see krita be
> released under GPL v3).

Personally, I think the GPL v3 restrictions are very sensible and necessary in 
this day and age, although possibly not too applicable for an application 
like Krita. (Although... Imagine a new etch-a-sketch toy that embeds GPLv2 
Krita. The makers of the toy could make it impossible for owners of the toy 
to install and run a new version of Krita by using cryptography, even while 
complying with all rules by allowing their version as source download.)

> After some discution on irc, it seems that LGPL v2 might be the right
> licence for my code. While I still have some concern/questions left
> unanswered about it that I will sort out by asking the fsf directly, it's
> very likely that I will change the licence of all my new files to LGPL v2
> between 1.6 and 2.0.

I don't like having different licenses for different parts of Krita. As long 
as it's just plugins and all of the plugin has a single license that's 
compatible with the core of Krita, I'd grudgingly agree. But having two kinds 
of licenses in krita/image and krita/ui sounds like a legal impossibility to 
me.

-- 
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/20060906/1e27a529/attachment.pgp