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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Alternative Licenses not in the KDE Licensing Policy
From:       Boudhayan Gupta <bgupta () kde ! org>
Date:       2016-12-09 4:59:50
Message-ID: CAKDS=NmQDDJ_c6f1DvnoTaUWeJd2+LampdthCBh=msOW06w=Gw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

I'm writing an embeddable key-value database library as part of my
university project. I'd like to eventually include and distribute it
via KDE.

As you may remember, I have a strong preference for putting up my code
under extremely permissive licenses, BSD being my most preferred
choice. However, I was looking at the terms of other common
open-source software licenses and in particular the Apache 2.0 license
strikes me as one I really like. It is permissive enough for me, and
specifically allows me - as I understand - to terminate the license
grant if the user sues me for patent infringement, which seems fair to
me.

The FSF explicitly states that the Apache License 2.0 is incompatible
with GPLv2 and compatible with GPLv3. What I'd like to ask is:

1) If my library is Apache License 2.0 licensed, can software licensed
under GPLv2/v3 and LGPLv2/2.1/3 - basically, most other software in
KDE - link to it?

2) I'm strictly *not* using anything beyond the C++ STL in my project
- my library is supposed to have as few dependencies as possible,
apart from a modern compliant C++ compiler. However, can I link to (a)
GPLv2/v3 code and (b) LGPLv2/2.1/3 code if I so desire?

3) Would KDE consider hosting Apache License 2.0 code at all?

-- Boudhayan
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]