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
t
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 ch
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 contr
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?
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
> > b
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 pro
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
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 c
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
> Licen
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 bef
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.
>
>
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 chang
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 w
13 matches
Mail list logo
