Relicensing Krita as LGPLv2+

[Wolthera]

LGPL's big thing is the linking stuff, right?


Yeah, this is fine by me.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Alvin Wong <alvinhochun+krita at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Boud,
>
> I'm fine with relicensing my few lines of contributions to LGPL.
>
> Regards,
> Alvin
>
> P.S. Please note that my commit email address doesn't have `+krita` in
> it in case if you're checking the commit log.
>
> 2017-01-05 17:13 GMT+08:00 Boudewijn Rempt <boud at valdyas.org>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Umpteenth draft of this mail, but I think we should consider relicensing
> > the GPL code in Krita to LGPL.
> >
> > One reason is that now that Krita is on its own, the mix of LGPL library
> > code inherited from koffice/calligra and GPL library code inherited from
> > Krita makes it hard to move code around; like we just did in the svg
> > branch, creating the kritacommand library from code from krita/image
> > and libs/kundo2. That code needs to be relicensed to LGPL before we
> > merge the branch, of course.
> >
> > Another reason is that there are too many macOS users who get confused
> > when they install an application that's not in the app store, and we
> > cannot publish GPL software in the app store. I wish I could just shrug
> > that off, and I've done that until 3.1, but it's getting quite a
> > support burden.
> >
> > I haven't found a script yet that will figure out who owns copyright
> > on the original GPL'ed krita code only -- running things like git fame
> > only works on the whole repo, most of which is LGPL already...
> >
> > --
> > Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org
>



-- 
Wolthera
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20170105/5c6e454a/attachment.html>