Licensing for cxx-kde-frameworks (Rust bridge for KF6)

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 4:30 PM Darshan Phaldesai
<dev.darshanphaldesai at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 31/10/24 5:47 am, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>
> > On 2024-10-30, Darshan Phaldesai <dev.darshanphaldesai at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Few considerations:
> >> First, I plan to include bridges for most libraries needed for
> >> application development and so need to consider their licenses as well.
> >> Second, This project will only hold the "bridge" code and thus users
> >> will still need to install the libraries. I don't think this should
> >> cause any license violations but the bridge code is based of the method
> >> signatures of the original libraries.
> >> Third, Upstream `cxx-qt` project uses Apache-2.0+MIT and I planned to do
> >> the same but KDE's Licensing policy doesn't mention any thing about
> >> Apache-2.0.
> > I'd say just stick the same license on it as the KDE Frameworks in
> > question.
> > Given they are a directly derived work and also uses the KDE Frameworks
> > underneath, giving any other license is just going to be confusing for
> > the people involved.
> >
> > The app developers needs to deal with (l)gpl licenses anyway.
> >
> > /Sune
> Now that I think about it, this might the best way to maintain license
> compatibility. Individual bridges can be licensed depending on their
> counterparts.
>
> I will make this change. Thank you.
>

It's not that simple. The reason I suggested MPL-2.0 is because
LGPL-2.1-or-later is effectively the same as GPL-2.0-or-later with
Rust because it's statically linked.

MPL-2.0 preserves the copyleft at a per source file level, but allows
the binary artifact to have a composition of compatible licenses
(including the GNU ones). This is the least messy for Rust bindings to
LGPL libraries.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!