2008/11/14 Aaron J. Seigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Friday 14 November 2008, Davide Bettio wrote:
> > why we used LGPL for all our runners/dataengines?
>
> no particular reason. probably because i was working on libplasma a lot and
> just copied over the license headers between files as i was worki
On Friday 14 November 2008, Davide Bettio wrote:
> why we used LGPL for all our runners/dataengines?
no particular reason. probably because i was working on libplasma a lot and
just copied over the license headers between files as i was working on
examples, such as the time engine. and like mono
On Friday 14 November 2008, Davide Bettio wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We need to relicense to LGPL these files too:
they don't need to be LGPL
> *kdebase/workspace/libs/libplasmaclock
this should be LGPL is at all possible, yes.
--
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C4
Hi,
Il Friday 14 November 2008 22:01:23 Aaron J. Seigo ha scritto:
> yes, i don't see any need to change the license on them.
why we used LGPL for all our runners/dataengines?
Bye,
Davide Bettio.
___
Plasma-devel mailing list
Plasma-devel@kde.org
https
Hi,
We need to relicense to LGPL these files too:
* kdebase/workspace/plasma/runners/
PowerDevilRunner
shell_config
*kdebase/workspace/libs/libplasmaclock
clocknumber (I think that we can kill this one, it seems almost unuseful)
clockapplet
Bye,
Davide Bettio.
___
On Friday 14 November 2008, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Davide Bettio
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think that these files need to be relicensed to LGPL:
>
> Are dataengines really considered libraries? Theres no actual linking
> that occurs.. right? G
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Davide Bettio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that these files need to be relicensed to LGPL:
Are dataengines really considered libraries? Theres no actual linking
that occurs.. right? GPL should be just fine for them.
>
> favicons
> filebrowserengin
