KDE Frameworks 5.74.0 released

Andreas Müller schnitzeltony at gmail.com
Thu Sep 17 20:45:23 BST 2020

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:02 PM Adriaan de Groot <groot at kde.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, 13 September 2020 13:16:47 CEST Andreas Müller wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 1:33 PM David Faure <faure at kde.org> wrote:
> > > 12th September 2020. KDE today announces the release of KDE Frameworks
> > > 5.74.0.
> > Not mentioned here: Many (All?) licenses are now according to REUSE
> > policy [1]. Reading that did not help me much so my questions here:
> > For example syntax-highlighting 5.73 was clearly stated as MIT. With
> > 5.74.0 it is - have not the slightest idea.
> In v5.73.0, there is a top-level file called COPYING, which contains the MIT
> license (and a weird reference to "above copyright notice", which notice is
> missing from the file).
> The data included with the library (XML files), however, is variously LGPL,
> GPL, .. I didn't dive into it exactly. In other words, while the *code* is
> MIT, the whole thing might not be (please ask a lawyer, and look closely at
> exactly what you are combining).
> In v5.74.0, there is no top-level file anymore. So you don't get a single
> message "this is MIT" -- which is confusing, maybe, except that the message
> was factually misleading in v5.73.0. The LICENSES/ directory tells you what
> licenses are used, across the whole repository, but not what-goes-where.
> With grep, you now have a single [*], unambiguous, way of finding out what
> licenses apply to the code: `grep -r SPDX-License-Identifier src/`
> That's easier than guessing the applicable license from the text blobs and the
> myriad spellings of each license.
> So the (perhaps unfortunate) conclusion is, in licensing, "it's complicated"
> and the previously unambiguous assertion "MIT" was not, in fact, unambiguous
> or entirely true.
> [ade]
> [*] For greater coverage `reuse spdx` will give you a report on each file with
> additional information, known as an SPDX bill of materials. `reuse lint` will
> tell you this:
> * Files with copyright information: 147 / 1508
> * Files with license information: 72 / 1508
> So for this repo, there's a ways to go still.
Thanks for this helpful explanation - will look into the repos.
My problem: I maintain an Openembedded(OE)/Yocto layer with MANY kde
packets (kf5/plasma/apps). OE is picky about licenses so I need to
rework all the - so called - recipes (syntax-highlighter was just an
example). Need to think about some scripting here - otherwise I won't
finish that before I die :)
Sorry but I have further questions:

1. The files in LICENSES folder: Are all licenses there mandatory or
are some of my choice: E.g.
Should be OK to say LPGPv2.1+ - right?

2. Other repos have the KDE approved licenses. If I understand them
correctly, they reference to other licenses. So do I need to take them
into account?

Yeah licenses are dangerous business...


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list