> If we make Baloo GPL and then happen to change the database > used we would have to relicense all of Baloo. That would be a lot > of admin work contacting all developers.
I'm not advocating changing the library headers to GPL*, just not saying the library is LGPL, when it can not be *used* as an LGPL library. Cheers, Ivan * as you said, admin overhead, though it would not be huge in this case. On 15 December 2014 at 18:13, David Edmundson <da...@davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Ivan Čukić <ivan.cu...@kde.org> wrote: >> >> > Albert is right, Baloo is LGPL but the resulting binaries will be GPL. >> >> Again, this serves no purpose other than 'we are using LGPL' since >> libbaloo clients can not be non-free - they will have to link to the GPL >> binary. >> >> I'd rather have an exception to the rule than having something that will >> confuse the library users even more - it is LGPL, but I can not use it from >> non-GPL code. >> >> > If we make Baloo GPL and then happen to change the database used we would > have to relicense all of Baloo. That would be a lot of admin work > contacting all developers. > > David > > > _______________________________________________ > Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list > Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel > > -- Cheerio, Ivan -- While you were hanging yourself on someone else's words Dying to believe in what you heard I was staring straight into the shining sun
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
