Copyright status

JL VT pentalis at
Sat Jun 26 19:23:08 CEST 2010

After writing this message I think this isn't a Krita-specific discussion,
but I want to bring it up here to see what you all think before I talk about
it elsewhere.
I think the FSF summarizes my concern better than I could, so please read
this fragment:

Krita has a large number of contributors to many different files. Defending
it in a court would be very difficult in its current state, so at the moment
the enforcement of its license is just based on honor. I see many GPL
programs pile up contributors, each owning a little piece of the software,
eventually making the license hard to enforce against an hypothetical evil
re-licenser (if he's evil, honor won't work!).

In that sense, isn't using a copyleft license a moot point after all?, It
only places restrictions on people willing to respect it, not on the
hypothetical evil corporate users wanting to steal the code. A non-copyleft
license would be just as functional and more convenient to those willing to
respect it, in all cases except when there is few and well identified
copyright owners to a program (or just 1, for example an institution, like
the FSF).

On a sidenote:
I remember Cyrille mentioned something about countries in Europe where a
corporation couldn't own copyright over something. If you are reading this:
what countries are those?.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the kimageshop mailing list