[kdewebdev-site] Tomorrow

[Eric Laffoon]

On Tuesday 22 February 2005 07:15 am, obennett wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 February 2005 04:11, Eric Laffoon wrote:
> > If you
> > don't have an account you can apply for one at
> > https://kittyhooch.com/kdewebdev.php.
>
> "6) Eric Laffoon, acting as kdewebdev.org, has irrevocable rights to the
> code, content and artwork contributed to kdewebdev.org. Any licensed
> software or content placed on the site shall be governed by it's license.
> This shall not in any way restrict anything published on the site that
> falls under an open source license.
> 7) Eric Laffoon will have the right to distribute the code in this project
> under an open source license, giving credit to significant contributors as
> best as possible. "
>
> I seem to be the only one who cares but which "an open source license" will
> you be distributing the website under?

I won't be distributing the site under an open source license. I'm not 
distributing the site at all, as this involves the actual code. I'm not 
planning on publishing the site per se. Content is another matter, however 
this references user contributions. So let me clear it up...

Assume you or I contribute our private libraries we use in our business to the 
site. Anyone working on the site can obviously work with these libraries, but 
if you hold copyright other people cannot distribute your business library 
code. Anyone using your code outside of the site would need to ask your 
permission, unless you specify an open source license. Now let's say you 
write some content for the site, and as project leader and custodian of the 
project I decide while writing a book that I want to quote a portion of the 
site in the book where there might be a copyright issue... but I can't find 
you to ask you. Or suppose you do some work on the site that really amounts 
to a lot, get all pushed out of shape and want to demand your work be 
removed. If however you publish your code in the project as open source and 
it is unencumbered that license will not in any way be impeded.

As you can see #6 is there to protect contributors and to make sure there are 
not difficult limitations put on my efforts to support the project. #7 
basically says if you write code for the project that proves useful as an 
example or package for the open source community I have permission to 
distribute it as an open source package. For instance if you work on 
something like the project management tools or feature request system and 
this proves to be what I hope it will I can distribute it under an open 
source license. My preference I guess I assumed was clear is the GPL. The 
point of #7 is that I am saying that I cannot distribute code you contribute 
(without your express permission) under any license but an open source 
license, which I will clarify is the GPL. The exception to this is something 
I introduce as a dual licensed like the data classes I'm working on. They 
will say up top they are GPL for non commercial use but require a one time 
license fee for commercial use. If you modify them you will be agreeing to 
the same terms as if you were to submit a fix for Qt to Trolltech.

I hope that clears things up. I'll change the text to reflect that I would 
only distribute under the GPL.
>
> > please post here before making any commits. If you can ask questions I
> > can tell you what I'm doing and get you on something.
> >
> > If it works I'll make sure everyone is on. I am getting everything in CVS
> > now.

-- 
Eric Laffoon
Project Lead - kdewebdev module