[Panel-devel] [PATCH] Beginnings of a panel implementation for discussion

[Robert Knight]

Thomas, this is not the appropriate mailing list to have a discussion
about licensing on.  This thread is for a technical discussion of the
panel implementation.

Feel free to discuss this on kde-licensing at kde.org

Meanwhile I will change the license text as per Aaron's request.

On 19/08/07, Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom at strangesoft.net> wrote:
> On Sun August 19 2007, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > On 8/19/07, Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom at strangesoft.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat August 18 2007, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > > > On 8/18/07, Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri August 17 2007, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday 17 August 2007, Robert Knight wrote:
> > > > > > > This is mainly here to discuss the API for the Panel class and
> so
> > > > > > > that we can put something together for the applet developers to
> > >
> > > test
> > >
> > > > > > > with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > there are many issues with this code as it stands, but i'm fine
> > > > > > with
> > > > >
> > > > > using
> > > > >
> > > > > > it as a start. issues, in no particular order, none of which imho
> > >
> > > block
> > >
> > > > > you
> > > > >
> > > > > > putting this into svn as a draft right now:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - the dptr in Panel needs to be const'd
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - can you put it under the "LGPLv2 or later" please? thanks....
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a random thought, but that "or later" bit seems a little
> > >
> > > dangerous.
> > >
> > > > > They
> > > > > (FSF) could put anything they want into v3, and the code would
> > > > > automatically
> > > > > be licenced under it. Not like they'd do anything like that though
> ;)
> > > >
> > > > They can't, it has to stay 'in the spirit of LGPLv2'. Now that term of
> > > > course could mean a lot, but NOT something like BSD or proprietary. So
> > >
> > > it's
> > >
> > > > rather limited what they can do. Besides, KDE can just not start using
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > 'later' part if we're not happy with the terms...
> > >
> > > Tis all I'm saying. Better safe than sorry. AFAIK, several projects have
> > > already done search and replace on their source and docs for the "or
> > > later"
> > > bit. Just so they didn't get caught with terms they didn't agree with.
> > >
> > > IMO, its like saying to someone "I agree with you, now and forever!"
> >
> > Well, yes, it is. So it comes down to trust, I guess. Personally, I'd
> trust
> > the FSF - they're pretty clear on what they want, and they can't change
> > their opinion.
>
> No, but they can keep adding more and more clauses to the licence that
> restrict what can be done with your code. If you like that, fine.
>
> > Practically, having all code under "or later" is easier. If you don't want
> > to go to the next version, as a project, no problem. Just don't. Of
> course,
> > tell contributers to use GPLv2"or later", not GPLv3... If you want to go
> > that way, you can. But if there is code without the "or later", you have
> to
> > contact people to be able to go to a newer version.
>
> If a version says "GPL2 or later" that includes 3, as v3 is "later". As soon
> as a new licence is out, it gets bumped up to it. People can start claiming
> (because it is) that "OMG ProjectX is GPL3" and then that gets blown out
> proportion, and theres a good chance that many potential (commercial) users
> will be put off, and decide to stay away.
>
> >
> > The only problem is if a contributer contributed code with GPLv2 or later,
> > and there comes a gplv3 along the road which he doesn't like. KDE starts
> > using it. Now he can't deny KDE the use of his code, while in the no "or
> > later" situation, he could.
> >
> > I could see why a individual contributer would prefer the latter
> situation,
> > but for KDE, it's worse. KDE is best off with a "or later" clause, because
> > WE can then decide what to do.
>
> Can you? I don't think so. If you say "or later" that means anyone using it
> can claim any version from 2 and onwards, weather you like it or not. You'd
> have to go back and make a request to all the copyright holders to change
> the
> licence (not an entirely easy task in many cases).
>
> With the "or later" bit you are essentially being forced into agreeing to
> whatever gets put into new versions.
>
> Whats better? Licence change on the project's terms or on the licence
> author's
> terms?
>
> > And if a contributor doesn't like that, of
> > course, he can talk about it. And it's possible some don't want to
> > contribute due to this clause (I think it's unlikely). Overall I think
> it's
> > best to set this policy by default.
>
> --
> Thomas Fjellstrom
> tfjellstrom at strangesoft.net
> _______________________________________________
> Panel-devel mailing list
> Panel-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/panel-devel
>