Extending the licensing policy: BSD license for cmake files

[Robert Knight]

Hi,

Seems sensible to me.  Do we have to put license text at the top of
every CMakeLists.txt file or is there a simpler alternative?

> I also don't see a
> realistic opportunity that some evil company could take some cmake files from
> us, extend them without contributing back and then make big profits from
> them...

Me neither - although I must emphasize that the L/GPL licenses do not exist
to stop people profiting from the code - far from it.  There are other
licenses which
cover that case if it is important to you as a developer.


Regards,
Robert.

2009/9/5 Alexander Neundorf <neundorf at kde.org>:
> Hi,
>
> our licensing policy mentions source files, icons, documentation, but not
> cmake files. I think this should be added.
>
> So, I strongly suggest that we require all cmake files must be BSD licensed.
>
> Which files does that apply to ?
> This applies to all Find<package>.cmake files we have in KDE svn, especially
> those which are installed. It also applies to other *.cmake files containing
> macros or scripts, especially those which are installed.
>
> I don't think we need a licensing policy regarding the actual CMakeLists.txt.
>
> At least in kdelibs/cmake/modules/ all files are BSD licensed (except
> FindPolKitQt.cmake, which will be changed soon to BSD).
>
> Why BSD ?
>
> * CMake itself is BSD licensed and Kitware will not accept files with a
> stricter licenser (e.g. GPL or LGPL) in CMake cvs. So by licensing our cmake
> files under BSD we make it possible that cmake files we wrote might get
> accepted in CMake cvs.
>
> * Assume a cmake file would be GPL, and this file would call configure_file()
> to create a config.h, and that config.h would be included in some source
> file. Would this maybe apply the GPL from the cmake file via the generated
> header to the source file which includes this header ?
> I don't know, maybe yes, maybe no, but at least developers of non-GPL software
> may potentially see an issue with that.
> By using BSD there is no such potential problem.
>
> * It makes mixing and copying code between different cmake files
> straightforward if everything is just BSD.
>
> * After all, the code in the files is usually not that sophisticated that it
> would justify the special protection (L)GPL gives. I also don't see a
> realistic opportunity that some evil company could take some cmake files from
> us, extend them without contributing back and then make big profits from
> them...
>
> So, what do you think ?
> Objections ?
>
> Alex
>