[Kde-bindings] license question
jahqueel at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 20 07:51:29 UTC 2005
For my part:
Smoke itself is licensed under the two-clause BSD license (smoke
consists of little more than smoke.h, but it's a universal component).
The kalyptus-to-smoke code generator was partially derived from a
primitive parser I posted to this list many years ago into the public
domain. The current version is LGPLed by the KDE project.
PerlQt-3 was released under the same terms as Perl, which is a
dual-licensing of the GPL and Artistic license, so using the GPL rather
than the LGPL there is part of the Perl culture.
--- Simon Edwards <simon at simonzone.com> wrote:
> On Monday 19 December 2005 21:41, Marcus wrote:
> > Why do language bindings have to be GPL, but KDE's libraries are
> In fact bindings *can* be LGPL for the same reasons and with the same
> implications at the 'normal' KDE libraries.
> LGPL means that the bindings can be used with GPL code. (LGPL is
> compatible with the GPL). And LGPL bindings can also be used with the
> commercially licenced Qt.
> There is always dual licensing too.
> > On Monday 19 December 2005 1:58 pm, Richard Dale wrote:
> > > On Monday 19 December 2005 18:58, Thomas Moenicke wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > are there any risks known if such a kde/qt language binding
> would be
> > > > distributed under the LGPL license? All bindings I have seen
> are under
> > > > GPL. Does it has a reason or is it just chance?
> > >
> > > No, language bindings have to be GPL'd. But you can dual license
> it so
> > > holders of commercial licenses can do commercial things with it
> if you
> > > (eg an MIT license).
> Simon Edwards | Guarddog Firewall
> simon at simonzone.com | http://www.simonzone.com/software/
> Nijmegen, The Netherlands | "ZooTV? You made the right choice."
> Kde-bindings mailing list
> Kde-bindings at kde.org
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the Kde-bindings