Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries

[Jaroslaw Staniek]

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

Re: [kde-community] Licensing question with header-only libraries

[Ivan Čukić]

> 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

[Thiago Macieira]

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

[Ivan Čukić]

> 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

[Thiago Macieira]

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

[Albert Astals Cid]

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

[Ivan Čukić]

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

[Adriaan de Groot]

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

[Jonathan Riddell]

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