[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-community
Subject: Re: [kde-community] licence policy updates
From: Michael Pyne <mpyne () kde ! org>
Date: 2014-02-17 2:29:13
Message-ID: 12780225.AfvBYFSGma () midna
[Download RAW message or body]
On Mon, February 17, 2014 01:44:29 you wrote:
> On Sunday 16 February 2014 15:25:31 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > I noticed that GPLv3 *is* an acceptable license for non-library code,
> > either GPLv3, GPLv3+, or GPLv3 w/ Qt exceptions. GPLv2 is certainly a
> > valid option but it does not appear to be mandatory.
>
> Why is it not a good license for libraries?
The general idea is that for library code you would want either a weaker
copyleft license like LGPL or a permissive license like MIT or BSD, so as to
permit the development of many different kinds of KDE-using applications
(perhaps even closed-source ones).
Regards,
- Michael Pyne
_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic