Re: KDE licence policy update
Hi all, I'm a bit late to the party. If I'm not too late, one addition I'd like to propose to (4) is the Boost license. It is similar to BSD/MIT without requiring attribution with binaries. It is approved by OSI and by FSF. The reason for this proposal is that the Boost project provides one of the largest C++ codebases, and is not completely ignored by our software. :) > -Allow AGPL for web apps > -Encourage AGPL for web apps As for AGPL, +1 for making it the recommended option for web apps. Cheers, Ivan
Re: KDE licence policy update
On Friday, February 10, 2017 2:54:52 PM EST Jonathan Riddell wrote: > I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft > > I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now > includes a handy changelog. > > -Allow AGPL for web apps > -Encourage AGPL for web apps The draft looks generally good to me, thanks for doing this! My one concern is this encouragement of AGPL for web apps. While I was originally for AGPL being recommend for web apps, I'm no longer sure that it is a good option. Lawyers seem to be less sure how AGPL behaves for software that would integrate with proprietary bits, which may cause large organizations to not use our software. At the same time, lawyers are a cautious bunch and may never like the AGPL if it isn't used more/tested in courts. I'm all for having AGPL software in KDE! Currently, I'm just not sure recommending it is a good option. Other then that, the draft looks good to me aside from the comments others have raised. -- Matthew signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: KDE licence policy update
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Jonathan Riddell ha scritto: > >> The main change is for docs and other non-code files to become >> CC-BY-SA 4. This allows it to be converted to code (it's one-way >> compatible with LGPL 3) > Do you have more details for this? I see contradicting information, it does > not seem to be totally future proof (even if I hope that we won't see a GPLv4 > before my retirement, but... that would be too much I guess): > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3 > (hint about GPLv3 only) > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html -> "Unfortunately, > CC-BY-SA 4.0 does not permit relicensing to future GPL versions. What you > should do, when you relicense material under CC-BY-SA 4.0 to the GPL, is > specify yourself as a license version proxy to indicate whether future GPL > versions have been authorized for that material. If someday there is a GPL > version 4 and Creative Commons decides to allow relicensing from CC-BY-SA to > GPL version 4, you as proxy will be able to retroactively authorize use of > that relicensed material under GPL version 4. (Alternatively, you can ask the > authors of that material to give permission right away.)" I think that may fall into FLA/FRP territory. That being said, this seems to need taking to the e.V. to get a new FRP revision as currently CC isn't even considered an acceptable license according to the FRP. The FDL however is. Consequently the FLA would no longer cover documentation under the suggested changes. https://ev.kde.org/resources/FRP.pdf
Re: KDE licence policy update
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 12:37:23AM +0100, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Jonathan Riddell ha scritto: > > > The main change is for docs and other non-code files to become > > CC-BY-SA 4. This allows it to be converted to code (it's one-way > > compatible with LGPL 3) > Do you have more details for this? I see contradicting information, it does > not seem to be totally future proof (even if I hope that we won't see a GPLv4 > before my retirement, but... that would be too much I guess): > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3 > (hint about GPLv3 only) Yes looks like you're right, it's GPL 3 compatible. > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html -> "Unfortunately, > CC-BY-SA 4.0 does not permit relicensing to future GPL versions. What you > should do, when you relicense material under CC-BY-SA 4.0 to the GPL, is > specify yourself as a license version proxy to indicate whether future GPL > versions have been authorized for that material. If someday there is a GPL > version 4 and Creative Commons decides to allow relicensing from CC-BY-SA to > GPL version 4, you as proxy will be able to retroactively authorize use of > that relicensed material under GPL version 4. (Alternatively, you can ask the > authors of that material to give permission right away.)" > > Can we setup a process so that we don't need to rework everything in the > future? How about making further use of this page? https://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing Jonathan
Re: KDE licence policy update
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:18:55PM +0100, Burkhard Lück wrote: > Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2017, 18:43:38 CET schrieb Adriaan de Groot: > > This point is listed under "All new source code and related data files ..." > > and? there's an additional point 12, "Documentation started before 2016 can > > be licensed under ..." which would seem to be exactly what you're asking > > for > > What is the definition of "Documentation" in the license policy draft? > > "Documentation" = each single docbook, i.e 160 single docbooks for digikam > or > "Documentation" = all docbooks pulled in via entities in index.docbook of an > application ? I'm not sure it matters too much, pick whichever you want. Jonathan
Re: KDE licence policy update
Jonathan Riddell ha scritto: > The main change is for docs and other non-code files to become > CC-BY-SA 4. This allows it to be converted to code (it's one-way > compatible with LGPL 3) Do you have more details for this? I see contradicting information, it does not seem to be totally future proof (even if I hope that we won't see a GPLv4 before my retirement, but... that would be too much I guess): https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3 (hint about GPLv3 only) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html -> "Unfortunately, CC-BY-SA 4.0 does not permit relicensing to future GPL versions. What you should do, when you relicense material under CC-BY-SA 4.0 to the GPL, is specify yourself as a license version proxy to indicate whether future GPL versions have been authorized for that material. If someday there is a GPL version 4 and Creative Commons decides to allow relicensing from CC-BY-SA to GPL version 4, you as proxy will be able to retroactively authorize use of that relicensed material under GPL version 4. (Alternatively, you can ask the authors of that material to give permission right away.)" Can we setup a process so that we don't need to rework everything in the future? -- Luigi
Re: KDE licence policy update
Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2017, 18:43:38 CET schrieb Adriaan de Groot: > This point is listed under "All new source code and related data files ..." > and? there's an additional point 12, "Documentation started before 2016 can > be licensed under ..." which would seem to be exactly what you're asking > for What is the definition of "Documentation" in the license policy draft? "Documentation" = each single docbook, i.e 160 single docbooks for digikam or "Documentation" = all docbooks pulled in via entities in index.docbook of an application ? Please clarify, thanks. -- Burkhard Lück
Re: KDE licence policy update
Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2017, 14:54:52 CET schrieb Jonathan Riddell: > I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft > > I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now > includes a handy changelog. > > -Note that Qt is LGPL 3 not 2.1 > -Code copied from Qt can be GPL 3 as well as GPL 2, check comparible > with your code > -Allow AGPL for web apps > -Encourage AGPL for web apps > -Allow icons to be CC-BY-SA 4 > -Allow media files to be CC-BY-SA 4 and no longer allow CC-BY-SA 3 > -Note CC-BY-SA 4 is LGPL 3 compatible > -Documentation to be CC-BY-SA 4 > -MIT text now one of the more standard variants (modern style with > sublicence) -Links to SPDX licences > > The main change is for docs and other non-code files to become > CC-BY-SA 4. This allows it to be converted to code (it's one-way > compatible with LGPL 3) and allows us to share with other popular > sources such as wikipedia. CC-BY-SA 4 is also better maintained, > better understood and internationally recognised than the old FDL > licence. > I fail to understand why FDL is dropped for Documentation, content on userbase is still dual licensed (CC_BY-SA 3.0 and FDL 1.2) and even the Licensing_Policy/Draft content itself is available under Creative Commons License SA 3.0 as well as the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 -- Burkhard Lück
Re: KDE licence policy update
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:48:41PM +0100, Burkhard Lück wrote: > I fail to understand why FDL is dropped for Documentation, content on > userbase > is still dual licensed (CC_BY-SA 3.0 and FDL 1.2) and even the > Licensing_Policy/Draft content itself is available under Creative Commons > License SA 3.0 as well as the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Simplification, FDL is a little used licence and keeping it would mean we couldn't share content the CC licenced sources. It serves no special purpose. It has a poor reputation due to the unused non-free options and it isn't maintained so if there's a problem with it we'd have nobody to back us up. Jonathan
Re: KDE licence policy update
On Friday 10 February 2017 16:06:23 Luigi Toscano wrote: > Would we allowed to keep the documents with old license and apply this only > to new one? Luigi, This point is listed under "All new source code and related data files ..." and there's an additional point 12, "Documentation started before 2016 can be licensed under ..." which would seem to be exactly what you're asking for (we can possibly argue over "before 2016", but perhaps this bit of the policy applied already). [ade]
Re: KDE licence policy update
On 10 February 2017 at 15:54, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft > > I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now > includes a handy changelog. > > [..] -Allow icons to be CC-BY-SA 4 > -Allow media files to be CC-BY-SA 4 and no longer allow CC-BY-SA 3 > -Note CC-BY-SA 4 is LGPL 3 compatible > Hi, I like this improvement. 1. How about calling it all "artwork and content" while still listing examples (icons, media files...) 2. I'd like to propose including "visual styles" into that group. By visual styles I mean implemented using using any styling language, including: CSS, HTML/JS templates, JS theming, ODF templates, QStyle (and derivatives). -- regards, Jaroslaw Staniek KDE: : A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators : and facilitators committed to Free Software development - http://kde.org Calligra Suite: : A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org Kexi: : A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi Qt Certified Specialist: : http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek
Re: KDE licence policy update
On Friday, 10 February 2017 14:54:52 CET Jonathan Riddell wrote: > I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft > > I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now > includes a handy changelog. > > [...] > -Documentation to be CC-BY-SA 4 I stand by my previous position (have dual license FDL in its fully free version/dfsg version + CC-BY_SA 4) but if I'm the only one it means that we have only the painful way of finding contributors no more active for 10+ years and try to relicense. We seriously risk to lose a lot of documentation this way. Would we allowed to keep the documents with old license and apply this only to new one? > The main change is for docs and other non-code files to become > CC-BY-SA 4. This [...] and allows us to share with other popular > sources such as wikipedia. It does not change your proposal but this specific point is incorrect: Wikipedia is dual licensed even now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Copyrights -- Luigi
KDE licence policy update
I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now includes a handy changelog. -Note that Qt is LGPL 3 not 2.1 -Code copied from Qt can be GPL 3 as well as GPL 2, check comparible with your code -Allow AGPL for web apps -Encourage AGPL for web apps -Allow icons to be CC-BY-SA 4 -Allow media files to be CC-BY-SA 4 and no longer allow CC-BY-SA 3 -Note CC-BY-SA 4 is LGPL 3 compatible -Documentation to be CC-BY-SA 4 -MIT text now one of the more standard variants (modern style with sublicence) -Links to SPDX licences The main change is for docs and other non-code files to become CC-BY-SA 4. This allows it to be converted to code (it's one-way compatible with LGPL 3) and allows us to share with other popular sources such as wikipedia. CC-BY-SA 4 is also better maintained, better understood and internationally recognised than the old FDL licence. Jonathan
