On Sat, May 28, 2016 14:53:54 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > All in all, If nobody just noted an issue with the licensing above maybe > nobody tried to place/distribute a non-GPL software on top of Plasma? That > would be the worst news of all to me. > > Please speak up someone else because it's a matter of KDE, not just a > single desktop shell. Maybe some voting fits here.
I've only been able to keep track of the margins of the thread but I will admit that it seems surprising that we would use code licensing as a means to either enforce the exclusiveness of Plasma's artwork above and beyond the existing license for the artwork, or to prevent applications running on KDE frameworks (but outside of Plasma) from supplying an alternative KDE-authored QStyle. On the other hand the major reason we would have needed a KStyle to have a license exemption in previous KDE desktop shells was so that third-party apps could better integrate into our desktop, not because we wanted applications to clone our style and use it outside of our desktop. So the extent that the plugin mechanism being discussed still allows apps to integrate into Plasma, it sounds to me like it's at least still doing what we'd expect, at least within our own shell. Either way, we seem to have settled on the idea of Qt being wholly responsible for integration ties into the desktop shell (whether that's Plasma, Windows, something else), and for that integration by Qt to settle on a style. That approach is consistent with Breeze-the-style being part of Plasma instead of an upstream tier. Whether that's always the ideal approach to take is perhaps a different question, but I don't intend to open it here. Regards, - Michael Pyne _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
