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

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
From:       Ivan Čukić <ivan.cukic () kde ! org>
Date:       2016-01-24 9:15:37
Message-ID: CAFkAKBw_iYDe1yGo3uJqQ=O8m=__8u8Kt1jAOq7Wuy-Q3ZAgng () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> I'd go with LGPL+exception. It's effectively the same as GPL+exception in
> this context but shows the intent of providing a library. If someone ever

I have never seen a project under LGPL+exception, that is the reason I
wrote GPL+exception. For me, it is the same, but I agree it would be
more obvious to the client if 'L' was added.

Now, the main problem here is that (L)GPL+exception is not on the list
of approved licenses for our code. :)

Cheers,
Ivan
_______________________________________________
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]