MPL2 instead of LGPL

[Christoph Cullmann]

On 2020-08-17 17:47, Ivan Čukić wrote:
>> > I've read now multiple times about projects replacing their use of
>> > LGPLv3 [1] with MPL2 [2]. I would be interested in what people in the
>> > KDE community think about that.
> 
> Maybe an alternative to MPL could be these:
> 1) GPL with runtime exception (if GCC's standard library can use it, I 
> guess
> we can as well) 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html
> 2) Boost license as it is also created for a set of template-heavy C++
> libraries
> 
>> If one wants to write a modern C++ library that makes heavy use of
>> templates in the API and which proprietary consumers should be able to
>> use is this clause alone reason to prefer the MPL2 over the LGPL or is
>> my concern unfounded?
> 
> Now, if you don't want to sue anyone, the "10 lines" thing is not a 
> problem.
> :)
> 
> You can ask around people that have C++ libraries published under LGPL
> if they had clients confused about the licensing. There is quote a lot 
> of FUD
> about (L)GPL often created by companies with dual-licensing models (not 
> gonna
> mention any names here) so I could see a company being afraid of using 
> an LGPL
> library. But, on the other hand, if you clearly explain what LGPL means 
> in the
> context of your library, I'd say LGPL will not be a problem.
Hi,

for KSyntaxHighlighting we did choose to go with MIT licensing instead 
of LGPLvX.

That allows all kind of integration for proprietary software,
but will allow people to keep their changes, too,
which might be not what all people like.

Greetings
Christoph

-- 
Ignorance is bliss...
https://cullmann.io | https://kate-editor.org