Re: Creating a map of KDE contributors?

[Jonathan Riddell]

Have you been sleeping with Ade too?

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:04:47PM +0200, Heiko Tietze wrote:
> What does it mean to have the same lucid dream?
> 
> +1 for Thomas
> 
> 2016-09-20 13:49 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Riddell :
> >
> > Gnome already do this
> > https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeWorldWide
> >
> > and I have vauge memories of KDE doing it in the past too, or maybe I 
> > dreamt that
> >
> > Jonathan

Re: Creating a map of KDE contributors?

[Heiko Tietze]

What does it mean to have the same lucid dream?

+1 for Thomas

2016-09-20 13:49 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Riddell :
>
> Gnome already do this
> https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeWorldWide
>
> and I have vauge memories of KDE doing it in the past too, or maybe I dreamt 
> that
>
> Jonathan

Re: [kde-community] Results from the Mission Survey

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On 12.09.2016 18:18, Alexander Neundorf wrote:

Hi,

On Thursday 01 September 2016 16:54:32 Lydia Pintscher wrote:

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Ingo Klöcker  wrote:

I don't think so. On
https://akademy.kde.org/
there's no BoF registered for working on the mission.

Thomas and I just added one on Tuesday at 4pm.

how did it go ?
Are there notes or something somewhere ?


Hi Alex,
there are no notes of the BoF, but all the tangible results of it are reflected 
in the updated Mission draft [1].
However, near the end of the BoF, concerns were brought up regarding whether a 
Mission for KDE should say anything about our products, or whether our products 
should only be defined by their individual product visions and a KDE Mission 
should only encompass how we organize and collaborate.
Therefore, we are now trying to find out whether the general direction that the 
draft is going into makes sense.

Input on that is of course welcome!
Cheers,
Thomas

[1] https://community.kde.org/KDE/Mission

Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:24:13PM +0200, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On dinsdag 20 september 2016 22:54:54 CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > On the other hand: Is Qt still used much for web services? 
> 
> It may in the future. During QtCon, Lars Knoll mentioned to make Qt render to 
> web browser as one possible future goal. We also have vague plans for kwin to 
> do that.

open365.io already does this for Libreoffice running KDE's breeze
artwork.  We would turn the whole archive to AGPL to prevent that sort
of project proprietising KDE software but my feeling is that's not
something we want to do and that it's far too big a discussion which should
be had separate from this licence policy update.

Jonathan

Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates

[Sebastian Kügler]

On dinsdag 20 september 2016 22:54:54 CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> On the other hand: Is Qt still used much for web services? 

It may in the future. During QtCon, Lars Knoll mentioned to make Qt render to 
web browser as one possible future goal. We also have vague plans for kwin to 
do that.

> And if so: Are
> our frameworks of much use for those?

Yes.
-- 
sebas

http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org

Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:19:26PM +0200, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> >2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell :
> >>Added:
> >>''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?
> >I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option.
> 
> I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least
> recommended, because for an end user a web service based on GPL
> software is no better than one based on proprietary software,
> because they cannot tell what software it is they're interacting
> with. Therefore, the AGPL closes an important hole in FOSS web
> services.
> 
> I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense
> to at least recommend AGPL for web software we produce.

Added that this is recommended now to the Draft

Jonathan

Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:11:10PM +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote:
> > Rationale: we have no policy for wikis but they are very important to
> > us especially with wikitoLearn so we should add one.  Our wikis are
> > currently CC 3.0+FDL but we should consider moving to CC 4.0 (CC
> > includes an or later so there's no difficultly in doing this).  FDL is
> > unmaintained and not much used so we can drop this.
> 
> I disagree with "little used". What does it mean "unmaintained"? Is the MIT 
> license maintained?
> I still would keep the dual license. Coming back later can be complicated if 
> impossible.

unmaintained means nobody cares about problems with it and there's no
updates expected.  The MIT is also unmaintained which means some
people can make claims which are untrue such as Pine authors claiming
you can't ship modified sources or people claiming additional
restrictions can be arbitrarily added and there's nobody in authority
to point out this is nonsense.

> > Changed:
> > "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons
> > Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International"
> > Rationale: Currently we use GNU FDL but that licence is unmaintained,
> > little used, problematic due to association with non-free options and
> > incompatible with the GPL.  CC-BY-SA 4 is one way compatible with the
> > GPL (code can be copied from docs to GPL code).  So I suggest moving
> > new docs to CC.
> 
> See above. That would make mixing content really complicated, especially when 
> we move from wiki to other formats or vice-versa. So same license in both 
> (dual at most).

It would make it possible to mix content from wikis to docs and to
code.  It's not currently possible to do this.

It would mean old docs couldn't be mixed with new docs as a downside.
Dual licencing with FDL would fix that but mean we couldn't copy from
anywhere else into wikis/docs which seems limiting.

Jonathan

Re: KDE Licensing Policy Updates

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:42:55PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2016-09-20, Jonathan Riddell  wrote:
> > Differences:
> > Removed
> > "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.

OK, I've reinstated that sentence but swapped versions to say:
 Note: code may not be copied from Qt into KDE Platform as Qt is LGPL 3 only 
which would prevent it being used under LGPL 2.1

> > Added:
> > ''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
> anywhere.
> 
> And it should also be specific to things on a web server.

I've updated it say to 'web server'.

> > Added:
> > "Content on collaborative edited websites such as wikis must be
> > licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0
> > International."
> 
> Again, I don't think we should force copyleft.

I've added "or compatible licence".  All our current wikis are CC-BY-SA 3.0.

> > Changed:
> > "Documentation must be licensed under the Creative Commons
> > Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International"
> 
> Also here. No need to force copyleft.

The previous requirement was the copyleft GNU FDL so there's no change
there.  I've added "or compatible licence". I've also added a note
"Note: CC-BY-SA 4.0 can be converted to LGPL 3."

> > Removed:
> > 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.

It's just an option, same as before, I just changed CC 3 to CC4 which
allows for more compatibility with GPLv3 licenced works.  I've also
removed the requiment for the files to be "standalone" as with CC4
being compatible to GPL 3 they can be mixed with code if it's a GPL3
project.

https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies%2FLicensing_Policy%2FDraft=revision=74119=74112

Jonathan