Licensing policy and Apache 2.0

[Jonathan Riddell]

I'm not against this but the downsides are:
-it's yet another licence so would add confusion
-it's incompatible with the GPL 2 so there's an increased risk of
incompatible licences interfering with each other

It doesn't seem to cover any use case that isn't covered by the other
permissive licences, it's just a bit more explicit about some of the
detail. Can you say why you think it's useful?

Jonathan


On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:32, Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano at tiscali.it>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> right now the licensing policy does not contain the Apache 2.0 license:
> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
>
> While it may not be really useful for C++ code, the Apache 2.0 license is
> more
> extensively used by the Python community, and it may be useful for
> infrastructure scripts. For example, I have in mind a few Python-based
> scripts
> for the i18n infrastructure and it may be useful to use it.
>
> I feel that adding Apache 2.0 to section 5 of the licensing policy would be
> enough for this, but of course we may want to create a special section to
> restrict its scope, if we want to avoid its usage in C++ code.
>
> Of course it may be possible to avoid it and just use pure MIT or BSD when
> GPL/LGPL are not used.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Ciao
> --
> Luigi
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20191021/b8d607c6/attachment.htm>