On Monday, January 05, 2015 14:32:32 Vishesh Handa wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Sebastian Kügler <se...@kde.org> wrote: > > > Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot (= making our lives more > > > complicated, by having a dependency that works differently from the > > > other > > > dependencies and has to be released separately) just so that we can say > > > > "all > > > > > frameworks are LGPL" ? > > > > I wouldn't call it shooting ourselves in the foot (since we know well > > about > > its consequences), but yes, I think it's worth it. > > Great. We have somewhat of a consensus, and I would have to do a lot of > work to not make it a framework. I'll request the move and everything that > is required. I'll also add a disclaimer that Baloo is effectively GPL. > > I also started hacking on the Xapian replacement, and I have a student > experimenting with Lucene, so Baloo will eventually become LGPL.
I think it's a misunderstanding: I think the effort of *NOT* having it a framework is worth clarity of licensing to frameworks. IOW: If it's not /effectively/ LGPL, but just on paper, it should not be a framework. Sorry for the confusion! -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
