From kde-devel Wed Feb 17 10:10:51 2016 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thomas_L=FCbking?= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:10:51 +0000 To: kde-devel Subject: Re: License of the Breeze style Message-Id: <9c892e02-c9de-40fa-b839-6f76c3a1624c () gmail ! com> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=145570388214659 On Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2016 07:58:46 CEST, Martin Graesslin wrote:=0A= > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:15:57 PM CET =D0=90=D0=BB=D0=B5=D0=BA= =D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=B4=D1=80 =D0=92=D0=BE=D0=BB=D0=BA=D0=BE=D0=B2 wro= te:=0A=0A>> I've noticed that the Breeze style is released under GPL-2+= license:=0A>> Why not LGPL? It's a library after all.=0A>=0A> The styl= e is not a library, it's a plugin. As it's released together with =0A> = Plasma the license choice of GPL looks quite correct to me.=0A=0AAccord= ing to the FSF cheat sheet [1] that's actually a "problem", because, wh= ile LGPL is an inappropriate license in any case, the GPL forbids [2] t= o load the GPL plugin in a non-GPL compatibly licensed application, ie.= strictly spoken, any application using the non-free Qt license MUST NO= T use the Breeze style (this becomes even more interesting reg. the QPA= plugin - notably as it's the user who loads the plugin ;-)=0A=0AI reca= ll some trouble with Debian in this regard, because they wanted to ship= Baghira but were uncomfortable with the BSD Style license it inherited= from Mosfet's Liquid. I never thought too much about the issue and jus= t constrained the license, but it seems BSD was chosen deliberately bac= k then?=0A=0AI guess GPL is fine and if users use non-free Qt clients o= n the Plasma QPA, we just look the other side?=0A=0ACheers,=0AThomas=0A= =0A=0A[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLAndPlugins=0A[= 2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF