El dijous, 25 de novembre de 2021, a les 16:42:32 (CET), Ingo Klöcker va escriure: > Hi all, > > it's not clear to me whether our licensing policy allows exceptions or not.
As far as I understand we want a "limited" number of licenses because we want to be relatively free of copying code around without having to worry [a lot] about the license. As far as I see this means exceptions are OK as "emitters-of-code" since they give you "more" rights so you can copy from them to somewhere else without issues. The problem is when files with exceptions are the "receivers-of-code" since you're actually breaking the license of the code-you-copied from somewhere else. So we need to be careful about that. My opinion is that if we mark it *very* clearly (with license markers and maybe even with a special filename foo_gpl_with_exception.cpp?) and we have a very good reason for the exception to be there it should not be a problem. Though how to write that into policy I am not sure :D Cheers, Albert > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy does not mention any > exceptions. > > https://community.kde.org/Guidelines_and_HOWTOs/Licensing explains how to use > exceptions and gives an example with the Qt-LGPL-exception-1.1. > > I have copied code from GCC's STL to implement a QMutex-compatible > replacement > for std::unique_lock (because apparently Windows resp. mingw doesn't have > std::mutex). GCC's code is "GPL-3.0-or-later WITH GCC-exception-3.1". (Ignore > the bogus license id in the .cpp file. I've already fixed it.) Therefore I've > put my Qt'ified copy under the same license. > > What now? Did I violate our licensing policy? Should we explicitly add > allowed > exceptions to our licensing policy? I guess we don't want to allow all > exceptions listed at https://spdx.org/licenses/exceptions-index.html. > > Regards, > Ingo >
