[kglobalaccel/kglobalaccel-master] /: Add missing licenses
mgraesslin at kde.org
Sat Jul 11 08:11:09 UTC 2015
On Friday 10 July 2015 15:46:08 Maximiliano Curia wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> On 10/07/15 14:44, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > On Friday 10 July 2015 12:26:23 Maximiliano Curia wrote:
> >> Add missing licenses
> > as the kglobalaccel maintainer I'm very surprised by your change. The
> > framework MUST be LGPL, because it's a framework. How come that you
> > decided
> > that it is GPL? What is wrong? What needs fixing? I'm especially surprised
> > by the language. There are no po files in this repository - how can it
> > change the license?
> The po/bg files are distributed with the kglobalaccel's tarballs and are
> under the GPL license, adding a copy of this license is only a formality
> required by most licenses, but changes nothing to the licensing state of
As that might also be an issue for other frameworks/applications: I think if
the license of a PO file is different the COPYING needs to be distributed
together with the PO file and not be part of the framework (where it is
> > I'm surprised that you didn't raise any concerns on the mailing list or
> > contacted me as the maintainer. Given that it is a framework it should
> > have
> > been obvious that there is a mistake somewhere and that changing to GPLv2
> > clearly cannot be the solution.
> Sorry, it was not my intention to step out of the line. The licensing issue
> was found by the Debian ftpmasters and I've prepared a patch to make
> kglobalaccel acceptable for Debian and I've posted the reviewboard to get
> some feedback.
> I think that we are giving different values to the COPYING.* files found in
> the root directory, for me, they are only legalese that go together with the
> real licensing done in the files, but I'm not a lawyer.
In that point I disagree. As frameworks are intended to be LGPL, having a GPL
Copying file is highly confusing to the developers and even more to users of
the framework. I would even go to the point of saying it's frightening for
users as it looks like using kglobalaccel turns your maybe non-free software
into having to comply to GPL and that's clearly not our intention.
> Another option could be to drop the GPL translations and ask for new
> translations, with a better licensing.
For the time being I would say the non-LGPL compliant po files should no
longer be distributed. So yes that goes in the direction of dropping them.
Btw. thanks to look into the license problem in this framework. This is of
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the release-team