On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:32 PM Christoph Cullmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2020-08-17 17:47, Ivan Čukić wrote: > >> > I've read now multiple times about projects replacing their use of > >> > LGPLv3 [1] with MPL2 [2]. I would be interested in what people in the > >> > KDE community think about that. > > > > Maybe an alternative to MPL could be these: > > 1) GPL with runtime exception (if GCC's standard library can use it, I > > guess > > we can as well) > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html > > 2) Boost license as it is also created for a set of template-heavy C++ > > libraries > > > >> If one wants to write a modern C++ library that makes heavy use of > >> templates in the API and which proprietary consumers should be able to > >> use is this clause alone reason to prefer the MPL2 over the LGPL or is > >> my concern unfounded? > > > > Now, if you don't want to sue anyone, the "10 lines" thing is not a > > problem. > > :) > > > > You can ask around people that have C++ libraries published under LGPL > > if they had clients confused about the licensing. There is quote a lot > > of FUD > > about (L)GPL often created by companies with dual-licensing models (not > > gonna > > mention any names here) so I could see a company being afraid of using > > an LGPL > > library. But, on the other hand, if you clearly explain what LGPL means > > in the > > context of your library, I'd say LGPL will not be a problem. > Hi, > > for KSyntaxHighlighting we did choose to go with MIT licensing instead > of LGPLvX. > > That allows all kind of integration for proprietary software, > but will allow people to keep their changes, too, > which might be not what all people like.
Hi Christoph, I don't want to go full permissive license. I haven't looked in depth on the technical, economical and social impact of permissive vs copyleft licenses but I feel that permissive licenses give too much away. In this regard for a personal journey and practical take on it (that at the end becomes suddenly intensely political though) I like an old blog post of Drew about MIT vs GPL at [1]. But it depends on the project size and what kind of integration is planned for sure. So I can follow you on why you chose MIT for KSyntaxHighlighting and I think showing flexibility in licensing questions is recommendable. >From the stuff I read it just feels the MPL2 could be a good middle ground between permissive and copyleft [2]. I'm just wondering why it's not used more often. That could be just momentum though. [1] https://drewdevault.com/2019/06/13/My-journey-from-MIT-to-GPL.html [2] http://veldstra.org/2016/12/09/you-should-choose-mpl2-for-your-opensource-project.html > Greetings > Christoph > > -- > Ignorance is bliss... > https://cullmann.io | https://kate-editor.org
