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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Alternative Licenses not in the KDE Licensing Policy
From:       Sune Vuorela <nospam () vuorela ! dk>
Date:       2016-12-09 8:07:25
Message-ID: o2dont$u3$1 () blaine ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 2016-12-09, Boudhayan Gupta <bgupta@kde.org> wrote:
> 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?

Note that we have plenty of GPLv2 legacy code. Much more than people
imagine.

> 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?

If you use a library under one of these licenses, your code effectively
becomes under these licenses as well. (You can't write wrapper library
and ignore copyleft requirements) 

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

I'd say no. We should still strive for gplv2 compatibility.
But a dual licensing model can fix that.

You can use it either under GPLv2 or later version, or if you prefer
under the Apache2 license.

/Sune

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