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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Complex License in KI18n and KConfig Frameworks
From:       Ayush Singh <ayushdevel1325 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-01-20 4:40:51
Message-ID: CA+Yfj7tmjgFA_a6==tDTcy4mavBVuZr+2H8kEqTcXxDMuud_BA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

If we ignore all directories other than src, the distribution is the following:
KConfig:
```
1  LGPL-2.0-only
2  BSD-2-Clause
2  GPL-2.0-or-later
4  LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL
53  LGPL-2.0-or-later
```

KI18n:
```
2  LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL
3  BSD-3-Clause
4  CC0-1.0
14  ODbL-1.0
44  LGPL-2.0-or-later
```

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:35 AM Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ayush,
>
> If you look at the specific files licensed under MIT in KConfig, those
> are tests only. And files with a GPL-2.0-or-later license belong to
> executables that you likely won't use to create the bindings. I might
> be okay to ignore their licenses.
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:16 PM Andreas Cord-Landwehr
> <cordlandwehr@kde.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ayush,
> >
> > thank you for bringing this topic up to the mailing list. From the choice of
> > licenses, IMHO it comes to either use a permissive license that is compatible
> > with as much source code as possible (that would be probably either MIT or
> > BSD-2-Clause) or using a smallest common denominator copyleft license to which
> > the code of the library is compatible (which would be "LGPL-2.1-only OR
> > LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL" AFAIS).
> >
> > I am not sure, how much inspiration from the existing copyleft licensed code
> > is required when creating the bindings. If enough is required to say that you
> > are creating a derived work, then you should take the latter approach in order
> > to avoid copyright problem.
> >
> > I am looking forward for further opinions :)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Andreas
> >
> > On Mittwoch, 19. Januar 2022 05:10:35 CET Ayush Singh wrote:
> > > I am the author of [ki18n](https://crates.io/crates/ki18n) Rust
> > > bindings and am currently working on bindings for
> > > [kconfig](https://invent.kde.org/oreki/kconfig-rs) as a part of Season
> > > of KDE.
> > >
> > > When I was trying to decide on a License for KConfig bindings, I was
> > > informed by Jos van den Oever, my mentor for SOK, that it would be
> > > best to use a license that does not conflict with the upstream KDE
> > > Framework. However, both KConfig and KI18n have different licenses for
> > > different parts of the code. So I am not quite sure what the License
> > > for the bindings should be.
> > >
> > > Here is the License distribution for KConfig:
> > > ```
> > > 2  BSD-2-Clause
> > > 2  BSD-3-Clause
> > > 2  GPL-2.0-or-later
> > > 3  LGPL-2.0-only
> > > 5  LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL
> > > 28  MIT
> > > 75  LGPL-2.0-or-later
> > > ```
> > >
> > > And here is the License distribution for KI18n:
> > > ```
> > > 5  CC0-1.0
> > > 6  LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL
> > > 9  BSD-3-Clause
> > > 14  ODbL-1.0
> > > 54  LGPL-2.0-or-later
> > > ```
> > >
> > > So, what should be the License for the bindings for these Frameworks?
> > > LGPL-2.0-or-later seems to be the most widely used in both cases.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Alexander Potashev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]