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

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 09:51 Sune Vuorela <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2024-11-03, Neal Gompa <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It's not that simple. The reason I suggested MPL-2.0 is because
> > LGPL-2.1-or-later is effectively the same as GPL-2.0-or-later with
> > Rust because it's statically linked.
> >


people lgpl does not forbids static linking.
this is a common misconception but lets not spread it further.


> > MPL-2.0 preserves the copyleft at a per source file level, but allows
> > the binary artifact to have a composition of compatible licenses
> > (including the GNU ones). This is the least messy for Rust bindings to
> > LGPL libraries.
>
> On second thoughts, I'm not even sure we need the copyleft protections
> that much here, since
>  - The rust bindings is probably quite shallow shells
>  - The real 'important' things lives in already (l)gpl licensed
>    components.
>
> That also makes the usual Rust MIT/Apache2 dual license useful. We just
> also need to make sure that people knows the thing effectively is (l)gpl.
>
> I think I at least won't object to adding a snippet to licensing
> policies that Rust code can be MIT/Apache2
>
> /Sune
>
>