Alternative Licenses not in the KDE Licensing Policy

[Boudhayan Gupta]

Hi,

I'm writing an embeddable key-value database library as part of my
university project. I'd like to eventually include and distribute it
via KDE.

As you may remember, I have a strong preference for putting up my code
under extremely permissive licenses, BSD being my most preferred
choice. However, I was looking at the terms of other common
open-source software licenses and in particular the Apache 2.0 license
strikes me as one I really like. It is permissive enough for me, and
specifically allows me - as I understand - to terminate the license
grant if the user sues me for patent infringement, which seems fair to
me.

The FSF explicitly states that the Apache License 2.0 is incompatible
with GPLv2 and compatible with GPLv3. What I'd like to ask is:

1) If my library is Apache License 2.0 licensed, can software licensed
under GPLv2/v3 and LGPLv2/2.1/3 - basically, most other software in
KDE - link to it?

2) I'm strictly *not* using anything beyond the C++ STL in my project
- my library is supposed to have as few dependencies as possible,
apart from a modern compliant C++ compiler. However, can I link to (a)
GPLv2/v3 code and (b) LGPLv2/2.1/3 code if I so desire?

3) Would KDE consider hosting Apache License 2.0 code at all?

-- Boudhayan

[Sune Vuorela]

Post by Boudhayan Gupta
1) If my library is Apache License 2.0 licensed, can software licensed
under GPLv2/v3 and LGPLv2/2.1/3 - basically, most other software in
KDE - link to it?

Note that we have plenty of GPLv2 legacy code. Much more than people
imagine.

Post by Boudhayan Gupta
2) I'm strictly *not* using anything beyond the C++ STL in my project
- my library is supposed to have as few dependencies as possible,
apart from a modern compliant C++ compiler. However, can I link to (a)
GPLv2/v3 code and (b) LGPLv2/2.1/3 code if I so desire?

If you use a library under one of these licenses, your code effectively
becomes under these licenses as well. (You can't write wrapper library
and ignore copyleft requirements)

Post by Boudhayan Gupta
3) Would KDE consider hosting Apache License 2.0 code at all?

I'd say no. We should still strive for gplv2 compatibility.
But a dual licensing model can fix that.

You can use it either under GPLv2 or later version, or if you prefer
under the Apache2 license.

/Sune

[Jonathan Riddell]

We don't include Apache 2 in our licencing policy because it's
incompatible with GPL 2. And there's still code which is GPL 2 only
plus it's good to minimise when code is under a licence which
effectively can't be used.

Post by Boudhayan Gupta
3) Would KDE consider hosting Apache License 2.0 code at all?

It would need a change to the licence policy.

You could dual licence as GPL 3 + Apache, both of which have
termination clauses for patent abuse.

Jonathan