Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
> El 24 ene 2016, a las 21:02, Thiago Macieira escribió: > >> On Sunday 24 January 2016 16:12:39 Jonathan Riddell wrote: >> inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), > > The restriction pretty much sets header-only libraries of any value out of > luck for this compliance. > > C code usually has small functions and templates. Modern C++ code is usually > template-heavy, with hundreds or thousands of lines of code. Or more. You missed a part of the paragraph. Before the part you quoted, it says "provided that, if the incorporated material is *not* limited to...". If it's limited to small functions, you need nothing extra. If it's *not* limited to small functions, you have to do the two mentioned things. -- Nicolás ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
> You may have heard of one. It's called Qt. From 2009 to 2016, it's been > licensed as LGPLv2.1 + exception. Completely forgot about that tbh. :) Cheers, Ivan ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
On Sunday 24 January 2016 16:12:39 Jonathan Riddell wrote: > inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), The restriction pretty much sets header-only libraries of any value out of luck for this compliance. C code usually has small functions and templates. Modern C++ code is usually template-heavy, with hundreds or thousands of lines of code. Or more. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
On Sunday 24 January 2016 10:15:37 Ivan Čukić wrote: > I have never seen a project under LGPL+exception, that is the reason I > wrote GPL+exception. You may have heard of one. It's called Qt. From 2009 to 2016, it's been licensed as LGPLv2.1 + exception. http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/tree/LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt?h=5.6 -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
Should be fine http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html " 3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files. The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following: a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document. " Jonathan On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 09:37:33AM +0100, Ivan Čukić wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm preparing a library that will probably end up being a header-only library. > I would like to use a license like LGPL - the code in question needs > to stay free, but that it can be used from non-free code like it is > the case with other frameworks. > > The issue is that (if I'm correct) LGPL does not have anything > different to GPL in this case since this is not a library that is > dynamically linked - if someone uses it, its code becomes a part of > the end product. > > If the above is correct, I think we should add a GPL+exception to the > list of approved licences. > > Cheerio, > Ivan > > -- > KDE, ivan.cu...@kde.org, http://cukic.co/ > gpg key id: 850B6F76 > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
On Sunday 24 January 2016 09:37:33 Ivan Čukić wrote: > The issue is that (if I'm correct) LGPL does not have anything > different to GPL in this case since this is not a library that is > dynamically linked - if someone uses it, its code becomes a part of > the end product. This is something we'd typically ask the legal folks at the FSFE. I'll ask *anyway*, even if you've already made up your mind -- it'll give us a talking point this weekend at FOSDEM, too. [ade] ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
Hi Olivier, Thanks for this info - exactly what I needed! Cheers, Ivan ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
On Sonntag, 24. Januar 2016 10:15:37 CET Ivan Čukić wrote: > > I'd go with LGPL+exception. It's effectively the same as GPL+exception in > > this context but shows the intent of providing a library. If someone ever > > I have never seen a project under LGPL+exception, that is the reason I > wrote GPL+exception. For me, it is the same, but I agree it would be > more obvious to the client if 'L' was added. > > Now, the main problem here is that (L)GPL+exception is not on the list > of approved licenses for our code. : Eigen is a header-only library that used to be LGPL. I recommand you have a look at their Licensing FAQ from the time: http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Licensing_FAQ&oldid=1116 ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
El Sunday 24 January 2016, a les 10:15:37, Ivan Čukić va escriure: > > I'd go with LGPL+exception. It's effectively the same as GPL+exception in > > this context but shows the intent of providing a library. If someone ever > > I have never seen a project under LGPL+exception, that is the reason I > wrote GPL+exception. For me, it is the same, but I agree it would be > more obvious to the client if 'L' was added. > > Now, the main problem here is that (L)GPL+exception is not on the list > of approved licenses for our code. :) Maybe this should be better discussed in https://mail.kde.org/mailman/ listinfo/kde-licensing? Cheers, Albert > > Cheers, > Ivan > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
> I'd go with LGPL+exception. It's effectively the same as GPL+exception in > this context but shows the intent of providing a library. If someone ever I have never seen a project under LGPL+exception, that is the reason I wrote GPL+exception. For me, it is the same, but I agree it would be more obvious to the client if 'L' was added. Now, the main problem here is that (L)GPL+exception is not on the list of approved licenses for our code. :) Cheers, Ivan ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
On 24 January 2016 at 09:37, Ivan Čukić wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm preparing a library that will probably end up being a header-only > library. > I would like to use a license like LGPL - the code in question needs > to stay free, but that it can be used from non-free code like it is > the case with other frameworks. > > The issue is that (if I'm correct) LGPL does not have anything > different to GPL in this case since this is not a library that is > dynamically linked - if someone uses it, its code becomes a part of > the end product. > > If the above is correct, I think we should add a GPL+exception to the > list of approved licences. > Hi Ivan I'd go with LGPL+exception. It's effectively the same as GPL+exception in this context but shows the intent of providing a library. If someone ever transforms the code to a regular library + headers, no change will be needed: LGPL will work for linkable code, and LGPL+exception for the embeddable headers. Cheers. > > > -- > KDE, ivan.cu...@kde.org, http://cukic.co/ > gpg key id: 850B6F76 > ___ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community -- regards, Jaroslaw Staniek KDE: : A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators : and facilitators committed to Free Software development - http://kde.org Calligra Suite: : A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org Kexi: : A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi Qt Certified Specialist: : http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
[kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries
Hi all, I'm preparing a library that will probably end up being a header-only library. I would like to use a license like LGPL - the code in question needs to stay free, but that it can be used from non-free code like it is the case with other frameworks. The issue is that (if I'm correct) LGPL does not have anything different to GPL in this case since this is not a library that is dynamically linked - if someone uses it, its code becomes a part of the end product. If the above is correct, I think we should add a GPL+exception to the list of approved licences. Cheerio, Ivan -- KDE, ivan.cu...@kde.org, http://cukic.co/ gpg key id: 850B6F76 ___ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community