On Wednesday 17 February 2016, Thomas Lübking wrote: > 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 ;-)
No. In this case the plugin is style-plugin, and not loaded by, requested by or an integral part of the application, the application will run perfectly fine without, which means the application is not a derived product of the plugin, and thus the application is not violating the GPL. The user can't violate the GPL either because the GPL doesn't apply any restrictions on users. `Allan
