I'm not against this but the downsides are: -it's yet another licence so would add confusion -it's incompatible with the GPL 2 so there's an increased risk of incompatible licences interfering with each other
It doesn't seem to cover any use case that isn't covered by the other permissive licences, it's just a bit more explicit about some of the detail. Can you say why you think it's useful? Jonathan On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:32, Luigi Toscano <luigi.tosc...@tiscali.it> wrote: > Hi, > > right now the licensing policy does not contain the Apache 2.0 license: > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy > > While it may not be really useful for C++ code, the Apache 2.0 license is > more > extensively used by the Python community, and it may be useful for > infrastructure scripts. For example, I have in mind a few Python-based > scripts > for the i18n infrastructure and it may be useful to use it. > > I feel that adding Apache 2.0 to section 5 of the licensing policy would be > enough for this, but of course we may want to create a special section to > restrict its scope, if we want to avoid its usage in C++ code. > > Of course it may be possible to avoid it and just use pure MIT or BSD when > GPL/LGPL are not used. > > What do you think? > > Ciao > -- > Luigi >