Licensing policy and Apache 2.0

Jonathan Riddell jr at
Mon Oct 21 11:13:49 BST 2019

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?


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

> Hi,
> right now the licensing policy does not contain the Apache 2.0 license:
> 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: <>

More information about the kde-community mailing list