<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">Hi,</p>
<br /><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">Quick check seems to indicate that KDE Connect license is:</p>
<br /><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;"><span style="background-color:#ffffff;"><span style="color:#ff5454;"><strong><span style="font-family:monospace;">GPL-2.0-only</span></strong></span><span style="color:#000000;"> OR GPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-GPL</span></span><br /></p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">Apache v2 licensed code is not compatible with GPL-2.0-only but</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">is compatible with GPLv3. So by combining KDE Conenct with</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">that library you lose right to redistribute the whole thing</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">as GPL2 but you still have the right to redistribute combined code under</p>
<br /><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;"><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="background-color:#ffffff;">GPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-GPL</span></span><br /></p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">I.e. you are essentially dropping GPLv2 support and only keeping GPLv3.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">So you must first check that you have no GPLv2 only dependencies.</p>
<br /><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">Kind regards,</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">Andrius</p>
<br /><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">2022 m. gruodžio 19 d., pirmadienis 23:34:11 CET Simon Redman rašė:</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> KDE Connect has had this PR languishing for a couple of years, with a </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> question I am not able to answer.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> https://invent.kde.org/network/kdeconnect-android/-/merge_requests/192</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> The author has added a (very useful) library, which happens to be </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> licensed under the Apache v2 license.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> KDE Connect code is GPL-licensed. GPL section 2 says that the entire </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> work must be distributed as GPL. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> In my eyes, the only meaningful part of the work is the source code, at </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> which level the concept of distributing a library does not apply. The </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> .apk that we give to users is just a convenience to them, they could </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> just as well build it themselves. The .apk contains both the KDE Connect </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> GPL code and the Apache-licensed libraries, but by itself has no </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> specific license (and doesn't claim to).</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> But my view don't matter, what matters is what happens in court, in the </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> event anyone ever accuses KDE of violating license terms. As I am not </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> qualified to expose KDE to any additional risk, is there a policy (or </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> accepted precedent) for distributing Apache-licensed libraries?</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> Thanks,</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> Simon</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">> </p>
<br /><br /></body>
</html>