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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: License of the Breeze style
From:       Thomas_L�bking <thomas.luebking () gmail ! com>
Date:       2016-02-17 10:10:51
Message-ID: 9c892e02-c9de-40fa-b839-6f76c3a1624c () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2016 07:58:46 CEST, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:15:57 PM CET Александр Волков wrote:

> > I've noticed that the Breeze style is released under GPL-2+ license:
> > Why not LGPL? It's a library after all.
> 
> The style is not a library, it's a plugin. As it's released together with 
> Plasma the license choice of GPL looks quite correct to me.

According to the FSF cheat sheet [1] that's actually a "problem", because, while LGPL \
is an inappropriate license in any case, the GPL forbids [2] to load the GPL plugin \
in a non-GPL compatibly licensed application, ie. strictly spoken, any application \
using the non-free Qt license MUST NOT use the Breeze style (this becomes even more \
interesting reg. the QPA plugin - notably as it's the user who loads the plugin ;-)

I recall 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 just constrained the license, but it \
seems BSD was chosen deliberately back then?

I guess GPL is fine and if users use non-free Qt clients on the Plasma QPA, we just \
look the other side?

Cheers,
Thomas


[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLAndPlugins
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF


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