Jonathan Riddell ha scritto:
> I'm not against this but the downsides are:
> -it's yet another licence so would add confusion
> -it's incompatible with the GPL 2 so there's an increased risk of incompatible
> licences interfering with each other
>
> It doesn't seem to cover any use case that
On Monday, 21 October 2019 12:13:49 CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> I'm not against this but the downsides are:
> -it's yet another licence so would add confusion
> -it's incompatible with the GPL 2 so there's an increased risk of
> incompatible licences interfering with each other
The
I'm not against this but the downsides are:
-it's yet another licence so would add confusion
-it's incompatible with the GPL 2 so there's an increased risk of
incompatible licences interfering with each other
It doesn't seem to cover any use case that isn't covered by the other
permissive
Hi,
right now the licensing policy does not contain the Apache 2.0 license:
https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
While it may not be really useful for C++ code, the Apache 2.0 license is more
extensively used by the Python community, and it may be useful for
infrastructure
