On 2016-09-20, Jonathan Riddell <j...@jriddell.org> wrote:
> "code may not be copied from Qt into KDE Platform as Qt is LGPL 2.1"
> Rationale: Qt is now LGPL 3 as well as 2
Qt is not LGPL2.1 in general. As long as we want to be LGPL2.1 compat,
we can't copy code from Qt.
> ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be
> licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later
> Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL
> Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software?
Not a requirement. Just like we don't have copyleft requirements
And it should also be specific to things on a web server.
An imap AGPLv3 server might be a bad thing - there is a way to notify
the user over teh imap protocol, but it is annoying for users, so it
should really not be used. (It is the way quota messages and similar
normally are sent)
> "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be
> licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0
Again, I don't think we should force copyleft.
> "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons
> Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International"
Also here. No need to force copyleft.
> Standalone media files CC 4.. "This does not apply to icons or
> anything which is likely to be mixed with content under our normal
> (GPL etc) licences."
> Rationale: CC 4 is compatible with GPL 3 which is the licence of
> Breeze icons anyway.
I want my icons licensed under the same terms as my application. Even
when my application is more liberal licensed than GPLv3.