Licensing policy and Apache 2.0
vkrause at kde.org
Mon Oct 21 17:22:16 BST 2019
On Monday, 21 October 2019 12:13:49 CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> 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
The incompatibility with GPLv2 is indeed a problem, but one we have to face
anyway, due to OpenSSL attempting to relicense to Apache 2. As that's a very
fundamental dependency we need to eventually have our entire code Apache 2
compatible I think. (GPLv2-only code isn't actually allowed by the license
policy, but it nevertheless still exists in a few places for historic
> 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 tiscali.it>
> > 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the kde-community