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

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: Extending the license policy to include Apache-2.0
From:       Jonathan Riddell <jr () jriddell ! org>
Date:       2021-09-22 10:57:37
Message-ID: CANX=XXM8Yrx2pw55Fqd98piPge9KD5H4PV1tvSPqmeS2u9N2Lw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I think I'd be against adding it to the policy, the aim of the policy has
always been to keep it simple which licence to use so ensure code and be
swapped around within and outwith KDE with minimal worry about different
licences.  Apache 2 doesn't add any useful use case to our licences that
isn't already covered by another one, it's just a bit more explicit about
the intended uses.

There's no problem with linking to Apache 2 code such as openssl.  When
Apache 2 licenced code is included in KDE because of policies used by other
projects that share the code such as aether-ssas or mycroft that shouldn't
be a problem, we can just note the reason why it's used and make clear the
different licence.

Jonathan

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div>I think I&#39;d be against adding it to the policy, the aim of \
the policy has always been to keep it simple which licence to use so ensure code and \
be swapped around within and outwith KDE with minimal worry about different licences. \
Apache 2 doesn&#39;t add any useful use case to our licences that isn&#39;t already \
covered by another one, it&#39;s just a bit more explicit about the intended \
uses.</div><div><br></div><div>There&#39;s no problem with linking to Apache 2 code \
such as openssl.   When Apache 2 licenced code is included in KDE because of policies \
used by other projects that share the code such as aether-ssas or mycroft that \
shouldn&#39;t be a problem, we can just note the reason why it&#39;s used and make \
clear the different licence.</div><div><br></div><div>Jonathan</div><div><br></div></div>




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