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 _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
