On Monday 15 December 2014 10:11:30 Ivan Čukić wrote: > > not. If there is baloo internal an abstraction allowing to easily > > > > swap out Xapian by something different I would say it's not > > > > derived work. But if Xapian is deeply wired into Baloo I would say > > > > it's derived work. > > From "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library", a > > document talking about why new libraries should use GPL instead of LGPL [1]: > > Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; > > > > free software developers need to make advantages for each other. > > > > Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers > > > > an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can > > > > use, while proprietary developers cannot use it. > > In this case, I think that anything non-GPL is 'proprietary' in the eyes of > GPL. > > > Otherwise, you'd always be able to wrap GPL code via abstraction (claiming > that it is a generic wrapper, and that the undrlying code is not important) > into LGPL library, and use it in non-free software.
well yes, that's how the blob drivers like NVIDIA do not need to be GPL - at least that's what the affected parties claim. > > > Albert's idea that Baloo can be LGPL, and only when distributed becomes GPL > might be possible to pull off, but I do not think it makes any difference > for baloo clients. Distributing Baloo with would make it GPL, and further, > anyone who uses libbaloo would need to distribute the code under GPL. > > > The point of KF5 is to be LGPL because non-free programs ought to be able > to use them, not because we like writing the word Lesser in the comment > header. :) > > > Cheers, > > Ivan > > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
