Relicensing Krita as LGPLv2+

[Paragon]

If we need to pay to get the krita package signed on Mac Os we may do 
specific kickstarters to get the money we need to do so, no ?

This would make some mac users understand what it mean to get theirs 
packages from the app-store, or support Apple software distribution 
philosophy.

(it would also be possible to put it in the annual kickstarter budget, 
but I think we miss the educational advantages of running a campaign 
just for that, and linux and windows users would maybe dislike paying 
for Apple philosophy).


Le 08. 01. 17 à 01:58, Wolthera a écrit :
> These situations use an amazingly untested construction where there's 
> a glue library that can link to GPL without having the main plugin be 
> forced to follow GPL. The same can be said of MuseScore and VLC.
>
> Sven's concern is quite valid though. I think that we kind of need to 
> wonder whether questions about the appstore shouldn't just be 
> forwarded to the mailing list so that boud shouldn't have to answer 
> them, especially because I haven't come across such questions myself, 
> meaning that there's a significant chunk of people who do know how to 
> use it on OSX. The problem being that people who don't are about 
> computer literate enough to mail the foundation email but not use the 
> 20 other places they could ask about this. For OSX, the only thing I 
> am really worried about is signing of OSX packages, because if that 
> becomes mandatory we might as well give up.
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Paragon <french.paragon at gmail.com 
> <mailto:french.paragon at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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
>>     <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.
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Wolthera

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20170108/446edaf8/attachment.html>