Re: Review Request 127963: Adding missing license

2016-05-19 Thread Marco Martin
> On May 19, 2016, 3:22 p.m., Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > I think the approach here is wrong. Our frameworks are LGPLv2+. If we have > > files which don't match that we need to either change copyright or remove > > the files. > > Martin Gräßlin wrote: > A check shows that examples/kpart and

Re: Review Request 127963: Adding missing license

2016-05-19 Thread Martin Gräßlin
> On May 19, 2016, 5:22 p.m., Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > I think the approach here is wrong. Our frameworks are LGPLv2+. If we have > > files which don't match that we need to either change copyright or remove > > the files. > > Martin Gräßlin wrote: > A check shows that examples/kpart and

Re: Review Request 127963: Adding missing license

2016-05-19 Thread Martin Gräßlin
> On May 19, 2016, 5:22 p.m., Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > I think the approach here is wrong. Our frameworks are LGPLv2+. If we have > > files which don't match that we need to either change copyright or remove > > the files. A check shows that examples/kpart and src/kpart are not built at all.

Re: Review Request 127963: Adding missing license

2016-05-19 Thread Marco Martin
> On May 19, 2016, 3:25 p.m., Marco Martin wrote: > > ok, let's actually fix this properly > > Marco Martin wrote: > package/packagestructure/servicejob are the ones that should be > relicensed (i would argue they already are, as their corresponding .cpp file > is lgpl 2+ already all the

Re: Review Request 127963: Adding missing license

2016-05-19 Thread Marco Martin
> On May 19, 2016, 3:25 p.m., Marco Martin wrote: > > ok, let's actually fix this properly package/packagestructure/servicejob are the ones that should be relicensed (i would argue they already are, as their corresponding .cpp file is lgpl 2+ already - Marco ---

Re: Review Request 127963: Adding missing license

2016-05-19 Thread Marco Martin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/127963/#review95616 --- ok, let's actually fix this properly - Marco Martin On May

Re: Review Request 127963: Adding missing license

2016-05-19 Thread Martin Gräßlin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/127963/#review95615 --- I think the approach here is wrong. Our frameworks are LGPLv2

Re: Review Request 127963: Adding missing license

2016-05-19 Thread Maximiliano Curia
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/127963/ --- (Updated May 19, 2016, 2:37 p.m.) Status -- This change has been mar

Re: Review Request 127963: Adding missing license

2016-05-19 Thread Marco Martin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/127963/#review95607 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Marco Martin On May 19, 2016, 1:51