On Thursday 20 May 2010 22:26:38 Armijn Hemel wrote: > hi, > > > Since HUPnP is distributed under a GPLv3 license and libsolid (and > > Qt/KDE as well) is LGPL, this license "incompatibility" wouldn't be a > > problem for us? I'm not a license expert, but AFAIK, if a given > > library made under LGPL uses another library distributed under GPL > > this makes the first (in our case Solid library) to become GPL, right? > > No. > > > Assuming that it's not a desired consequence, could Tuomo change > > > > HUPnP license to LGPL? > > Sigh. Step away from the keyboard *NOW* before any of you makes a big > (licensing) mistake.
Would be nice if you avoid being condescending there. Paulo is obviously trying to check if there's a potential problem and licensing issue that we could regret later if libsolid depends on HUPnP library. Obviously, I'm not providing any input to the discussion here, I just wanted to point out that's the kind of tone I'd prefer not see on this list. Please keep this place friendly. Thanks in advance. Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud patron of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-hardware-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-hardware-devel
