Relicensing Krita as LGPLv2+

[Wolthera]

Well, kickstarter might be a bit overkill, don't forget that kickstarter is
quite intense for us, and signing needs to happen every year.
Krita-Package-Signing patreon on the other hand :P
But this isn't quite an issue just yet.

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Paragon <french.paragon at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Wolthera
>
>
>


-- 
Wolthera
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20170108/43d4cbee/attachment.html>