[kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries

[Ivan Čukić]

> I'd go with LGPL+exception. It's effectively the same as GPL+exception in
> this context but shows the intent of providing a library. If someone ever

I have never seen a project under LGPL+exception, that is the reason I
wrote GPL+exception. For me, it is the same, but I agree it would be
more obvious to the client if 'L' was added.

Now, the main problem here is that (L)GPL+exception is not on the list
of approved licenses for our code. :)

Cheers,
Ivan