On Monday, June 6, 2016 1:29:51 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 6 June 2016 at 13:04, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Monday, June 6, 2016 12:17:11 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > On 30 May 2016 at 17:11, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 30,
On 6 June 2016 at 13:04, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 12:17:11 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > On 30 May 2016 at 17:11, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 14:42:43 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016
On Monday, June 6, 2016 12:17:11 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 30 May 2016 at 17:11, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 14:42:43 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 11:24:52 PM CEST Michael Pyne wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 14:53:54
On 06/06/2016 12:17 PM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
On 30 May 2016 at 17:11, Michael Pyne > wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2016 14:42:43 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 11:24:52 PM CEST Michael Pyne wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2016
On 30 May 2016 at 17:11, Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 14:42:43 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 11:24:52 PM CEST Michael Pyne wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 14:53:54 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > > All in all, If nobody just noted an issue
On Mon, May 30, 2016 14:42:43 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 11:24:52 PM CEST Michael Pyne wrote:
> > 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
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 11:24:52 PM CEST Michael Pyne wrote:
> 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
On 05/30/2016 12:33 AM, Aleix Pol wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote:
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 12:22:28 AM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
So we, in KDE, lack LGPL style code for our de-facto official look and feel.
This is the crucial point.
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 12:22:28 AM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>> So we, in KDE, lack LGPL style code for our de-facto official look and feel.
>
> This is the crucial point. Breeze is not the de-facto official look
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
On 23 May 2016 at 09:38, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 12:22:28 AM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > So we, in KDE, lack LGPL style code for our de-facto official look and
> feel.
>
> This is the crucial point. Breeze is not the de-facto official look and
>
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 12:22:28 AM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> So we, in KDE, lack LGPL style code for our de-facto official look and feel.
This is the crucial point. Breeze is not the de-facto official look and feel of
KDE. It's the look and feel of Plasma. Applications shouldn't use it.
On 18 May 2016 at 17:51, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:41:49 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > On 17 May 2016 at 20:38, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 6:23:10 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > > > If
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:41:49 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 17 May 2016 at 20:38, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 6:23:10 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > > If you show me why it needs to be a framework and I agree with it,
> > > > I
On 17 May 2016 at 20:38, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 6:23:10 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > If you show me why it needs to be a framework and I agree with it,
> > > I might be willing to consider to allow to relicense the code I wrote
> for
> > >
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Hugo Pereira Da Costa
wrote:
> On 05/18/2016 11:13 AM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 20:48, Hugo Pereira Da Costa
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>> Architecturally,
On 17 May 2016 at 20:48, Hugo Pereira Da Costa <
hugo.pereira.da.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> ​Architecturally, the eventual solution would be that breeze.git becomes
>> layered, and routines beyond what QStyle defines are provided by an LGPL
>> lib. It worked with libOxygen
Hi,
[snip]
​Architecturally, the eventual solution would be that breeze.git becomes
layered, and routines beyond what QStyle defines are provided by an LGPL
lib. It worked with libOxygen that is LGPL.
The reason for liboxygen was that part of Oxygen was also used by KWin
decoration. We fixed
On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 6:23:10 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > If you show me why it needs to be a framework and I agree with it,
> > I might be willing to consider to allow to relicense the code I wrote for
> > it.
>
> There's no request to make it framework from me. LGPLing Breeze does
On 17 May 2016 at 15:02, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 2:21:43 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > On 9 May 2016 at 07:53, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 7, 2016 10:10:50 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> >
On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 2:21:43 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 9 May 2016 at 07:53, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 7, 2016 10:10:50 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Is relicensing Breeze QStyle to LGPL from GPL for possible and
> >
> >
On 9 May 2016 at 07:53, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2016 10:10:50 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Is relicensing Breeze QStyle to LGPL from GPL for possible and
> acceptable?
> > I've found cases when bits of the code beyond QStyle/KStyle API
On Monday, 9 May 2016, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2016 10:10:50 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Is relicensing Breeze QStyle to LGPL from GPL for possible and
acceptable?
>> I've found cases when bits of the code beyond QStyle/KStyle API need
>> to
On Saturday, May 7, 2016 10:10:50 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> Hi,
> Is relicensing Breeze QStyle to LGPL from GPL for possible and acceptable?
> I've found cases when bits of the code beyond QStyle/KStyle API need
> to be reused. One example is: custom widgets.
> If we're considering Breeze
Hi,
Is relicensing Breeze QStyle to LGPL from GPL for possible and acceptable?
I've found cases when bits of the code beyond QStyle/KStyle API need
to be reused. One example is: custom widgets.
If we're considering Breeze QStyle as implementation of certain
artwork, and KDE artwork in general
25 matches
Mail list logo