<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
+ 1</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
some Bigscreen <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline !important;">python-based</span> subprojects interfacing with Mycroft hosted on invent are Apache licensed as Apache is widely accepted in the Mycroft community
as the go to license for any contributions.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> kde-community <kde-community-bounces@kde.org> on behalf of Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:12 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> informing about and discussing non-technical community topics <kde-community@kde.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Extending the license policy to include Apache-2.0</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi,<br>
<br>
Parts of <a href="https://invent.kde.org/websites/aether-sass/">https://invent.kde.org/websites/aether-sass/</a> are licensed<br>
under Apache License 2.0. This disagrees with the KDE licensing<br>
policy.<br>
<br>
Considering Apache-2.0 is similar to MIT, I don't see why it shouldn't<br>
be allowed by the policy. Is anyone aware of past discussions of the<br>
KDE licensing policy and reasoning behind this fact?<br>
<br>
<br>
The proposed addition to the policy section of <a href="https://community.kde.org/">
https://community.kde.org/</a><br>
Policies/Licensing_Policy would be:<br>
<br>
"""<br>
4. Source files that are part of a library with a public API which is<br>
part of the KDE Platform (kdelibs, kdepimlibs, kde-runtime and KDE<br>
Frameworks) must be licensed under:<br>
...<br>
[new bullet point] * Apache-2.0: Apache License 2.0 as listed below.<br>
"""<br>
<br>
<br>
What do you think?<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Alexander Potashev<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>