El Sunday 24 January 2016, a les 10:15:37, Ivan Čukić va escriure: > > I'd go with LGPL+exception. It's effectively the same as GPL+exception in > > this context but shows the intent of providing a library. If someone ever > > I have never seen a project under LGPL+exception, that is the reason I > wrote GPL+exception. For me, it is the same, but I agree it would be > more obvious to the client if 'L' was added. > > Now, the main problem here is that (L)GPL+exception is not on the list > of approved licenses for our code. :)
Maybe this should be better discussed in https://mail.kde.org/mailman/ listinfo/kde-licensing? Cheers, Albert > > Cheers, > Ivan > _______________________________________________ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
