2013/8/12 Kevin Krammer <anda.skoa@gmail.com>
On Monday, 2013-08-12, Ryan Bramantya wrote:
> > For KDE it depends on the type of component.
> > All things that are part of the platform are LGPL, BSD or MIT licensed,
> > only
> > end user applications are often GPL licensed.
> >
> > See http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
> >
> > Basic rule of thumb: anything a developer might use -> LGPL, anything
> > only a
> > user would use -> GPL
>
> Thanks, Levin for giving me clear explanation. But as far as I am aware as
> KDE user, some important parts of KDE still under GPL, such as KWin and
> Dolphin File Manager.

As the license policy says, only things in the KDE platform need to be
LGPL/BSD/MIT/X11 licensed, applications like Dolphin or workspace components
like KWin don't.

> Those are might be end user applications but
> sometimes developer needs to improve them with their specific needs without
> affected with GPL.

Not sure what you mean there, but a lot of plugin APIs are in fact LGPL
licensed. Any change to the application's code itself would equally be
"affected" by GPL and LGPL license rules.

> You probably already know if the current trend of free software seems to
> move away from a very radical copyleft license for more relaxed license.

I've read claims to that effect, yes.

> WebKit and GoogleChrome which are basically derived from KHTML and Android
> OS with the Linux kernel as its core is a small example to prove that
> non-copyleft license helps the wider acceptance of free software.

Two of the above mentioned projects show that copyleft licenses are no
obstacle to wide spread accpetance.
Aside from the Linux kernel, which is basically running this planet, WebKit is
probably even more impressive in uptake, due to it being used by even hardcode
proprietary vendors like Apple. It has also nicely demonstrated that shipping
a copyleft component on an embedded or mobile device is no problem either.

 
Also, one might add, had webkit been under a permissive license (like BSD) Apple probably wouldn't have contributed back their work on the code.

br. Chr.
 
> Non-GPL
> software will attract more developers to collaborate together, ranging from
> individual contributors to large-scale corporations for the benefit of
> each.

Probably, the Linux kernel seems to be doing fine, both in individual as well
as corporate contributors. Not sure how good non-GPL non-proprietary kernels
are doing out there.

> Sometimes an individual's involvement is not enough to manage
> large-scale free software projects, so the involvement of large companies
> are sometimes required.

Maybe, KDE is pretty large and is doing quite fine. But then again we have a
lot of very committed people :)

> Free software movement is still relevant today, but stay away from
> proprietary is something that is impossible in this era.

I wouldn't say it is impossible, but it can be beneficial if one can get
proprietary software vendors to at least collaborate on infrastructure and
base technologies instead of fragmentation, hence why most free software
communities using respective licensing for their products in those areas.

Cheers,
Kevin
--
Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
KDE user support, developer mentoring