Hello people
It seems that some people really do not want Baloo to become a framework as
long as it is effectively GPL. We might want to think about not restricting
ourselves in this way. If we didn't have plans to move away from Xapian it
would effectively become a core library that a lot of appl
On Tuesday 06 January 2015 11:01:19 David Faure wrote:
> Well, that's interesting, I didn't expect you would reply that :-)
You probably picture me as wanting KF to grow wide and large as much as
possible. That'd be wrong. I actually have this concern that we might reach a
point of "too much stu
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:01 AM, David Faure wrote:
> > Bottom line: since there's the possibility of a non-xapian backend making
> > Baloo effectively LGPL and not effectively GPL, I'd be in favor of
> waiting
> > for it to be reality.
>
> We need a much shorter term solution than that, for prac
On Tuesday 06 January 2015 14:18:16 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Dimarts, 6 de gener de 2015, a les 13:06:19, David Faure va escriure:
> > On Tuesday 06 January 2015 12:04:02 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > El Dimarts, 6 de gener de 2015, a les 11:01:19, David Faure va escriure:
> > > > The problem
El Dimarts, 6 de gener de 2015, a les 13:06:19, David Faure va escriure:
> On Tuesday 06 January 2015 12:04:02 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > El Dimarts, 6 de gener de 2015, a les 11:01:19, David Faure va escriure:
> > > The problem (and the reason I talk about shooting ourselves in the foot)
> > > i
On Tuesday 06 January 2015 12:04:02 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Dimarts, 6 de gener de 2015, a les 11:01:19, David Faure va escriure:
> > The problem (and the reason I talk about shooting ourselves in the foot)
> > is
> > ... what do we do instead, then, to solve the KDE issue?
> > We need to be
El Dimarts, 6 de gener de 2015, a les 11:01:19, David Faure va escriure:
> The problem (and the reason I talk about shooting ourselves in the foot) is
> ... what do we do instead, then, to solve the KDE issue?
> We need to be able to use baloo in both "KDE Workspace" and "KDE
> applications", which
Well, that's interesting, I didn't expect you would reply that :-)
> That's assuming people will look for those details. I'm unsure they will.
My suggestion is to make this fact as pro-eminent as possible.
If the framework code itself was GPL, I would advocate calling the framework
baloo-gpl. I
Hello,
I've been summoned by CCing, loose all hope! :-)
On Sunday 04 January 2015 11:23:49 David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2014 14:02:18 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > - If it's effectively GPL-licensed, it should not be a proper Framework
>
> I would like to challenge this reasoning.
>
On Monday, January 05, 2015 19:04:43 David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 05 January 2015 16:11:21 David Edmundson wrote:
> > Maybe we could all agree to let Kevin Krammer (as I understand it, the
> > current head of frameworks) to make a tough executive decision based on
> > the
> > thoughts people have
On Monday 05 January 2015 16:11:21 David Edmundson wrote:
> Maybe we could all agree to let Kevin Krammer (as I understand it, the
> current head of frameworks) to make a tough executive decision based on the
> thoughts people have had here so we can move forwards with making sure it
> gets release
On Monday, January 05, 2015 16:11:21 David Edmundson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > On Monday, January 05, 2015 14:32:32 Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > say
> >
> > > Great. We have somewhat of a consens
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Monday, January 05, 2015 14:32:32 Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > > > Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot (= making our lives more
> > > > complicated, by having a dependency
On Monday, January 05, 2015 14:32:32 Vishesh Handa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > > Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot (= making our lives more
> > > complicated, by having a dependency that works differently from the
> > > other
> > > dependencies an
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot (= making our lives more
> > complicated, by having a dependency that works differently from the other
> > dependencies and has to be released separately) just so that we can say
> "all
> > fra
Hi,
On Sunday, January 04, 2015 11:23:49 David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2014 14:02:18 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > - If it's effectively GPL-licensed, it should not be a proper Framework
>
> I would like to challenge this reasoning.
>
> It seems to me that the premise is:
> * we need
El Diumenge, 4 de gener de 2015, a les 11:23:49, David Faure va escriure:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2014 14:02:18 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > - If it's effectively GPL-licensed, it should not be a proper Framework
>
> I would like to challenge this reasoning.
>
> It seems to me that the premise is
On Tuesday 16 December 2014 14:02:18 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> - If it's effectively GPL-licensed, it should not be a proper Framework
I would like to challenge this reasoning.
It seems to me that the premise is:
* we need baloo
* baloo currently needs Xapian
* Xapian is GPL
* the architecture we
On Thursday 18 December 2014 12:43:18 Vishesh Handa wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > May I ask the question why Baloo should become a framework in the first
> > place?
> > On Windows or Mac, people won't use it anyways, no? Or is it required
> > there
> > for e.g.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Milian Wolff wrote:
>
> May I ask the question why Baloo should become a framework in the first
> place?
> On Windows or Mac, people won't use it anyways, no? Or is it required there
> for e.g. searches in KMail?
>
>
* Windows and Mac people should be using the sea
On Wednesday 17 December 2014 12:58:27 Vishesh Handa wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Gräßlin 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 the
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Gräßlin 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 swap out
> Xapi
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Gräßlin 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 swap out
> Xapi
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 develop
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.
>
> I'm not advocating changing the library headers to GPL*, ju
El Dilluns, 15 de desembre de 2014, a les 13:13:12, Sebastian Kügler va
escriure:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:34:46 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:27:48AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > > Baloo is still LGPL, when you aggregate it current Xapian code the
El Dilluns, 15 de desembre de 2014, a les 12:21:38, Ivan Čukić va escriure:
> > Albert is right, Baloo is LGPL but the resulting binaries will be GPL.
>
> Again, this serves no purpose other than 'we are using LGPL' since libbaloo
> clients can not be non-free - they will have to link to the GPL b
> 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.
I'm not advocating changing the library headers to GPL*, just not saying
the library is LGPL, when it can not be *used* as an
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Ivan Čukić wrote:
>
> > Albert is right, Baloo is LGPL but the resulting binaries will be GPL.
>
> Again, this serves no purpose other than 'we are using LGPL' since
> libbaloo clients can not be non-free - they will have to link to the GPL
> binary.
>
> I'd rathe
Hi,
On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:34:46 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:27:48AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > Baloo is still LGPL, when you aggregate it current Xapian code the
> > > result
> > > becomes GPL, but I could write something different with the same header
>
> Albert is right, Baloo is LGPL but the resulting binaries will be GPL.
Again, this serves no purpose other than 'we are using LGPL' since libbaloo
clients can not be non-free - they will have to link to the GPL binary.
I'd rather have an exception to the rule than having something that will
con
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:32:53AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> 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.
the Nvidia drivers do need to be GPL, that they're not just means
they're important enough that people tol
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:27:48AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > Baloo is still LGPL, when you aggregate it current Xapian code the result
> > becomes GPL, but I could write something different with the same header
> > interface as Xapian and make it LGPL, and then the aggregation would be
> > L
> 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
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.
>
> 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
docu
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 f
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 index (GPL). This would make Baloo GPL. Could we have an except
38 matches
Mail list logo
