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

[Cyrille Berger]

> 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.)
it's the other way around :
"The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys 
necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the 
recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the 
same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the 
work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for 
modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online 
service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the 
same online service in the same way such that the service cannot 
distinguish.) "

If in krita we include a key to read .kra files, then the toy maker has to 
include the same key to read them. But they can perfectly add a key 
to .kratoy.

> 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.
That's sad, that would effectively prevents me to be willing to work on 
krita/image and krita/ui.
-- 
--- Cyrille Berger ---