Licensing Policy: Accepting Apache 2 for oss-fuzz related files

[Neal Gompa]

Yeah, I would be okay with the very specific exception.

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

On Mon, Aug 4, 2025, 3:45 PM Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:

> El divendres, 30 de maig del 2025, a les 11:53:45 (Hora d’estiu d’Europa
> central), Albert Astals Cid va escriure:
> > We are trying to move most of the oss-fuzz related files to our reops
> > instead of being in https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/
> >
> > This will allow us to not have to depend on other people to merge
> changes in
> > them which sometimes creates a bit of friction.
> >
> > The problem is that those files are licenses under Apache 2 which is not
> > mentioned in https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
> >
> > I would like to propose that we add a point 18 to the policy that says
> >
> > 18. Files involved in the oss-fuzz tooling can be licensed under the
> Apache
> > License 2.0
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Please see
> > https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/karchive/-/merge_requests/125/diffs
> > for one of the various places we would use it.
>
> Neal did my arguments convince you?
>
> At some point in the thread you stopped answering and I would really
> really
> like to proceed with merging
> https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/karchive/-/merge_requests/125/
>
> Is there anything that would make the addition of point 18 easier for you
> to
> accept? Maybe
>
> 18. Build scripts involved in the oss-fuzz tooling can be licensed under
> the
> Apache License 2.0
>
> instead of "files" in general?
>
> Best Regards,
>   Albert
>
>
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >   Albert
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-devel/attachments/20250804/63fa5cdc/attachment.htm>