LGPL a possibility for Breeze Qt widget style?

[Elvis Stansvik]

2017-03-08 22:04 GMT+01:00 Elvis Stansvik <elvstone at gmail.com>:
> 2017-03-08 20:55 GMT+01:00 David Edmundson <david at davidedmundson.co.uk>:
>> There was a thread:
>> https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2016-May/034272.html
>>
>> I'm not sure it helps much.
>
> Oh wow. What a hornets nest that thread was! Almost too technical for
> me to understand. But it's clear to me after reading it that LGPLing
> of the Breeze style seems out of the question. It's a little sad
> because I don't think Jaroslaw presented his case very
> well/succinctly, and I understand Martins failure to see any strong
> reasons for LGPLing in his reasoning.
>
> All I can offer is then just another use case for an LGPL Breeze style:
>
> 1) I want to make an AppImage of a GPL-incompatible Qt application,
> that bundles a newer Qt than the one provided by the target system.
> 2) I want that application to look native under Plasma, hence I'd like
> to bundle a Breeze built against the bunded Qt.
>
> I'm not talking about turning Breeze into a library to be consumed by
> applications (it should not be), or a framework, or anything like
> that. Just allowing for GPL-incompatible apps to look native in a
> Plasma environment, even if they chose to bundle a newer Qt (e.g. by
> AppImage'ing).

And as an addendum, I'd just like to say that I perfectly understand
if the authors behind Breeze don't wish to see it used like this by
GPL-incompatible applications. I just wanted to present this use case
and put the question out there. To me I think of Breeze and other
widget styles as "plumbing", even if it's not a library (and not meant
to be used as one), and thus thought that a more permissive license
like LGPL would make sense, so that apps fit in under Plasma no matter
their license.

I really wish we could release this app as FOSS, even as GPL. But at
the moment it's been decided that we won't. At least not yet.

Elvis

>
> Elvis
>
>>
>> David