Re: Licensing for cxx-kde-frameworks (Rust bridge for KF6)

Ingo Klöcker <[email protected]> Mon, 04 Nov 2024 08:49:42 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.kde.devel.core
Message-ID	<2711489.lGaqSPkdTl@daneel>

On Montag, 4. November 2024 03:47:52 CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 9:44 PM Darshan Phaldesai
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 03/11/24 7:18 pm, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > It does, because the *Rust parts* are statically linked, but the
> > > *C/C++ parts* are dynamically linked.
> > 
> > I see. I did some research online (found your thread as well :) ) and
> > MPL2.0 makes sense to me.
> > 
> > Are most framework libraries compatible with MPL2.0? the ones included
> > at the moment are LGPL2 and shouldn't have any problems.
> > If no one has issues with it, I will switch to it.
> 
> Yes, it has a high degree of compatibility due to how it works as a license.

KDE's Licensing Policy (https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy) 
doesn't list the MPL(2.0) as allowed license for "source code and related data 
files in KDE repositories".

This doesn't mean that we couldn't allow the MPL2.0 for Rust bindings, but it 
means that we should amend the KDE Licensing Policy before we start using the 
MPL. So, please, start by proposing an amendment for the KDE Licensing Policy 
if you want to use the MPL2.0 for the Rust bindings.

I have no opinion about this except that I think it makes sense to use the 
Open Source license that is commonly used for Rust libraries. I do the same 
for Python code I write.

Regards,
Ingo

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 228 B)