[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: [kde-community] licence policy updates
From:       Michael Pyne <mpyne () kde ! org>
Date:       2014-02-17 2:29:13
Message-ID: 12780225.AfvBYFSGma () midna
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, February 17, 2014 01:44:29 you wrote:
> On Sunday 16 February 2014 15:25:31 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > I noticed that GPLv3 *is* an acceptable license for non-library code,
> > either GPLv3, GPLv3+, or GPLv3 w/ Qt exceptions. GPLv2 is certainly a
> > valid option but it does not appear to be mandatory.
> 
> Why is it not a good license for libraries?

The general idea is that for library code you would want either a weaker 
copyleft license like LGPL or a permissive license like MIT or BSD, so as to 
permit the development of many different kinds of KDE-using applications 
(perhaps even closed-source ones).

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]