Common Public License (CPL)

[Nicolas Goutte]

On Friday 03 March 2006 20:55, George Kraft wrote:
> > I am not a license expert but looking at
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> > I see problems, as the CPL license is described as not being compatible
> > with GPL (assuming that we are talking about the same CPL license).
>
> With respect to relative incompatibility, LGPL is incompatible to GPL,

As Thiago Macieira has pointed out in his answer, LGPL is considered to be GPL 
compatible in the FSF GPL compatibility list, which I gave the URL in my 
first answer.

> because GPL libraries force applications to become GPL.
>  LGPL and CPL
> libraries do not force application licensing.

Somehow I fail to see your point. We cannot choose. Qt is GPL if considered in 
a cross-platform way (except the professional non-free Qt licenses).

So what is in KDE must be considered compared to GPL.

>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
>

> I'm not asking to mix code with different licenses.  :-)  I'm trying to
> get folks to realize that CPL is another license for header files and
> libraries that be used to build GPL code.

However from my point of view, KDE cannot add CPL to license texts in kdelibs 
as the license is not GPL-compatible. So it is not a license that you can 
take, develop code with it and not think intensively about the license. (QPL 
is there however, but I suppose that it must be considered as historical.)

A written, I am not a license expert; I am even less a laywer. But KDE was 
critized heavily for its past license "liberties" (and is still critizied 
today, as far as I know; be it based on facts or not, I do not know), so KDE 
must be careful when dealing with licenses.

Have a nice day!