On Wednesday, 22 September 2021 03:57:37 PDT Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> I think I'd be against adding it to the policy, the aim of the policy has
> always been to keep it simple which licence to use so ensure code and be
> swapped around within and outwith KDE with minimal worry about different
>
On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 13:40, Luigi Toscano
wrote:
> Jonathan Riddell ha scritto:
> > I don't think it needs to be restricted to infrastructural tooling,
> maybe just
> > a line somewhere saying Apache 2 is an option if needed for code sharing
> > compatibility with third party projects.
>
>
Jonathan Riddell ha scritto:
> I don't think it needs to be restricted to infrastructural tooling, maybe just
> a line somewhere saying Apache 2 is an option if needed for code sharing
> compatibility with third party projects.
That still prevents the usage of Apache 2.0 from scratch, as someone
I don't think it needs to be restricted to infrastructural tooling, maybe
just a line somewhere saying Apache 2 is an option if needed for code
sharing compatibility with third party projects.
Jonathan
Jonathan Riddell ha scritto:
> I think I'd be against adding it to the policy, the aim of the policy has
> always been to keep it simple which licence to use so ensure code and be
> swapped around within and outwith KDE with minimal worry about different
> licences. Apache 2 doesn't add any
I think I'd be against adding it to the policy, the aim of the policy has
always been to keep it simple which licence to use so ensure code and be
swapped around within and outwith KDE with minimal worry about different
licences. Apache 2 doesn't add any useful use case to our licences that
isn't
On Friday, 17 September 2021 08:41:08 PDT Andreas Cord-Landwehr wrote:
> Yet no, it is not orthogonal IMHO, because our license list strives for
> compatibility between the licenses in our code base. If we would say that
> the GPL-2.0-only files are legacy/policy violation/or just deprecated, then
On Freitag, 17. September 2021 07:42:05 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 10:58:55 PDT Andreas Cord-Landwehr wrote:
> > Hi, now with the very recent release of openssl 3.0 [1], I think we have
> > to
> > eventually face the question what to do in this regard. But the not
On Thursday, 16 September 2021 10:58:55 PDT Andreas Cord-Landwehr wrote:
> Hi, now with the very recent release of openssl 3.0 [1], I think we have to
> eventually face the question what to do in this regard. But the not too
> small number of historic GPL-2.0-only files [2] yet is a problem.
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:12 AM
To: informing about and discussing non-technical community topics
Subject: Extending the license policy to include Apache-2.0
Hi,
Parts of https://invent.kde.org/websites/aether-sass/ are licensed
under Apache License 2.0. This disagrees with the KDE
On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 21:42:24 CEST Alexander Potashev wrote:
> Parts of https://invent.kde.org/websites/aether-sass/ are licensed
> under Apache License 2.0. This disagrees with the KDE licensing
> policy.
> """
> 4. Source files that are part of a library with a public API which is
>
On Mittwoch, 15. September 2021 21:50:13 CEST Luigi Toscano wrote:
> Alexander Potashev ha scritto:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Parts of https://invent.kde.org/websites/aether-sass/ are licensed
> > under Apache License 2.0. This disagrees with the KDE licensing
> > policy.
> >
> > Considering Apache-2.0 is
Alexander Potashev ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> Parts of https://invent.kde.org/websites/aether-sass/ are licensed
> under Apache License 2.0. This disagrees with the KDE licensing
> policy.
>
> Considering Apache-2.0 is similar to MIT, I don't see why it shouldn't
> be allowed by the policy. Is anyone
Le mercredi 15 septembre 2021 à 9:42 PM, Alexander Potashev
a écrit :
> Hi,
> Parts of https://invent.kde.org/websites/aether-sass/ are licensed
> under Apache License 2.0. This disagrees with the KDE licensing
> policy.
>
> Considering Apache-2.0 is similar to MIT, I don't see why it shouldn't
Hi,
Parts of https://invent.kde.org/websites/aether-sass/ are licensed
under Apache License 2.0. This disagrees with the KDE licensing
policy.
Considering Apache-2.0 is similar to MIT, I don't see why it shouldn't
be allowed by the policy. Is anyone aware of past discussions of the
KDE licensing
15 matches
Mail list logo
