On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Gräßlin mgraess...@kde.org wrote:
I think Jonathan should respond to it. Your argumentation makes sense to
me,
but the question is whether Baloo is currently derived work of Xapian or
not.
If there is baloo internal an abstraction allowing to easily
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Gräßlin mgraess...@kde.org wrote:
I think Jonathan should respond to it. Your argumentation makes sense to
me,
but the question is whether Baloo is currently derived work of Xapian or
not.
If there is baloo internal an abstraction allowing to easily
On Tuesday 16 December 2014 14:02:18 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
On Monday, December 15, 2014 19:48:30 Ivan Čukić wrote:
If we make Baloo GPL and then happen to change the database
used we would have to relicense all of Baloo. That would be a lot
of admin work contacting all developers.
On Sunday 14 December 2014 00:33:20 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
El Dimarts, 9 de desembre de 2014, a les 15:22:15, Vishesh Handa va
escriure:
Hey guys
I would like to promote Baloo to be a framework for 5.6.
All of Baloo's code is LGPL, however, we internally use Xapian as a full
text
not. If there is baloo internal an abstraction allowing to easily
swap out Xapian by something different I would say it's not
derived work. But if Xapian is deeply wired into Baloo I would say
it's derived work.
From Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library, a
document
On Monday 15 December 2014 10:11:30 Ivan Čukić wrote:
not. If there is baloo internal an abstraction allowing to easily
swap out Xapian by something different I would say it's not
derived work. But if Xapian is deeply wired into Baloo I would say
it's derived work.
From Why you
well yes, that's how the blob drivers like NVIDIA do not need to be GPL -
at
least that's what the affected parties claim.
There is a difference there. The kernel modules are a bit of a special case
for some reason.
They are only implementing an interface, and they are not distributed as a
