[kglobalaccel/kglobalaccel-master] /: Add missing licenses

[Albert Astals Cid]

El Dissabte, 11 de juliol de 2015, a les 10:11:09, Martin Gräßlin va escriure:
> 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
> > the
> > library/framework.
> 
> 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
> incorrect).
> 
> > > 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.

The license of the file just needs to be changed, please contact them, as per 
https://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy we agree that the 
translations of the code for kdelibs and frameworks will be "complatible" 
licensed, so basically if that file carries a GPL license is because someone 
made a wrong copy&paste it was never the intented license.

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> Btw. thanks to look into the license problem in this framework. This is of
> course appreciated.
> 
> Cheers
> Martin