On Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2016 07:58:46 CEST, Martin Graesslin wrote:
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:15:57 PM CET Александр Волков wrote:
I've noticed that the Breeze style is released under GPL-2+ license:
Why not LGPL? It's a library after all.
The style is not a library, it's a plugin. As it's released together with
Plasma the license choice of GPL looks quite correct to me.
According to the FSF cheat sheet [1] that's actually a "problem", because,
while LGPL is an inappropriate license in any case, the GPL forbids [2] to load the GPL
plugin in a non-GPL compatibly licensed application, ie. strictly spoken, any application
using the non-free Qt license MUST NOT use the Breeze style (this becomes even more
interesting reg. the QPA plugin - notably as it's the user who loads the plugin ;-)
I recall some trouble with Debian in this regard, because they wanted to ship
Baghira but were uncomfortable with the BSD Style license it inherited from
Mosfet's Liquid. I never thought too much about the issue and just constrained
the license, but it seems BSD was chosen deliberately back then?
I guess GPL is fine and if users use non-free Qt clients on the Plasma QPA, we
just look the other side?
Cheers,
Thomas
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLAndPlugins
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF
