Hi Ayush, If you look at the specific files licensed under MIT in KConfig, those are tests only. And files with a GPL-2.0-or-later license belong to executables that you likely won't use to create the bindings. I might be okay to ignore their licenses.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:16 PM Andreas Cord-Landwehr <cordlandw...@kde.org> wrote: > > Hi Ayush, > > thank you for bringing this topic up to the mailing list. From the choice of > licenses, IMHO it comes to either use a permissive license that is compatible > with as much source code as possible (that would be probably either MIT or > BSD-2-Clause) or using a smallest common denominator copyleft license to which > the code of the library is compatible (which would be "LGPL-2.1-only OR > LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL" AFAIS). > > I am not sure, how much inspiration from the existing copyleft licensed code > is required when creating the bindings. If enough is required to say that you > are creating a derived work, then you should take the latter approach in order > to avoid copyright problem. > > I am looking forward for further opinions :) > > Best regards, > Andreas > > On Mittwoch, 19. Januar 2022 05:10:35 CET Ayush Singh wrote: > > I am the author of [ki18n](https://crates.io/crates/ki18n) Rust > > bindings and am currently working on bindings for > > [kconfig](https://invent.kde.org/oreki/kconfig-rs) as a part of Season > > of KDE. > > > > When I was trying to decide on a License for KConfig bindings, I was > > informed by Jos van den Oever, my mentor for SOK, that it would be > > best to use a license that does not conflict with the upstream KDE > > Framework. However, both KConfig and KI18n have different licenses for > > different parts of the code. So I am not quite sure what the License > > for the bindings should be. > > > > Here is the License distribution for KConfig: > > ``` > > 2 BSD-2-Clause > > 2 BSD-3-Clause > > 2 GPL-2.0-or-later > > 3 LGPL-2.0-only > > 5 LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL > > 28 MIT > > 75 LGPL-2.0-or-later > > ``` > > > > And here is the License distribution for KI18n: > > ``` > > 5 CC0-1.0 > > 6 LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL > > 9 BSD-3-Clause > > 14 ODbL-1.0 > > 54 LGPL-2.0-or-later > > ``` > > > > So, what should be the License for the bindings for these Frameworks? > > LGPL-2.0-or-later seems to be the most widely used in both cases. > > > > -- Alexander Potashev
