Relicensing Krita as LGPLv2+

[Paragon]

Blender and Natron are under a GPL license but there are comercial 
plugins for both of them. (And even commercial "forks" of blender, or at 
least builds of blenders that are sold with a commercial closed 
software, like vray). So I don't think relicensing under lgpl will 
change much on this case. Tell me if i'm wrong ???


Le 07. 01. 17 à 21:37, Sven Langkamp a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Boudewijn Rempt <boud at valdyas.org 
> <mailto:boud at valdyas.org>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
>
> We could go to GPL for the complete repository and never have to 
> relicense anything again. It also doesn't happen that often that files 
> need to be moved across libaries and I have done some relicensing for 
> this in the past.
>
>     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.
>
>
> This is somewhat of a grey area. At least the FSF thinks that even the 
> LGPL isn't compatible with the App Store.
>
> https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/left-wondering-why-vlc-relicensed-some-code-to-lgpl
>
> VLC did the same relicensing and is in the App Store, so it works for 
> now. But I wouldn't bet on that for the future.
>
> Beside that I don't like that Apple indirectly dictates our licensing.
>
>     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...
>
>
> I'm remain sceptical about this for now.
>
> There is another issue that should be considered. Due to the heavy use 
> of plugins in Krita it would become very easy to extend Krita with 
> closed-source plugins. Pratically is would be possible to make a 
> close-source version on top of the existing code. This may sound 
> hypothetical, but we had this in the past were the license prevented a 
> commercial fork. Do we allow that? I think that's something that 
> should at least be considered.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20170107/7a607f1f/attachment.html>