Jonathan Riddell ha scritto: > I think I'd be against adding it to the policy, the aim of the policy has > always been to keep it simple which licence to use so ensure code and be > swapped around within and outwith KDE with minimal worry about different > licences. Apache 2 doesn't add any useful use case to our licences that isn't > already covered by another one, it's just a bit more explicit about the > intended uses. > > There's no problem with linking to Apache 2 code such as openssl. When Apache > 2 licenced code is included in KDE because of policies used by other projects > that share the code such as aether-ssas or mycroft that shouldn't be a > problem, we can just note the reason why it's used and make clear the > different licence.
Please consider that such a broad "no, you need to justify it every time" basically blocks the usage of this license even for tooling. As pointed out, for example, Apache 2 is widely used in the Python world. Can we please at least have an exception for infrastructural tooling? -- Luigi