2017-03-08 22:04 GMT+01:00 Elvis Stansvik <elvst...@gmail.com>: > 2017-03-08 20:55 GMT+01:00 David Edmundson <da...@davidedmundson.co.uk>: >> There was a thread: >> https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2016-May/034272.html >> >> I'm not sure it helps much. > > Oh wow. What a hornets nest that thread was! Almost too technical for > me to understand. But it's clear to me after reading it that LGPLing > of the Breeze style seems out of the question. It's a little sad > because I don't think Jaroslaw presented his case very > well/succinctly, and I understand Martins failure to see any strong > reasons for LGPLing in his reasoning. > > All I can offer is then just another use case for an LGPL Breeze style: > > 1) I want to make an AppImage of a GPL-incompatible Qt application, > that bundles a newer Qt than the one provided by the target system. > 2) I want that application to look native under Plasma, hence I'd like > to bundle a Breeze built against the bunded Qt. > > I'm not talking about turning Breeze into a library to be consumed by > applications (it should not be), or a framework, or anything like > that. Just allowing for GPL-incompatible apps to look native in a > Plasma environment, even if they chose to bundle a newer Qt (e.g. by > AppImage'ing).
And as an addendum, I'd just like to say that I perfectly understand if the authors behind Breeze don't wish to see it used like this by GPL-incompatible applications. I just wanted to present this use case and put the question out there. To me I think of Breeze and other widget styles as "plumbing", even if it's not a library (and not meant to be used as one), and thus thought that a more permissive license like LGPL would make sense, so that apps fit in under Plasma no matter their license. I really wish we could release this app as FOSS, even as GPL. But at the moment it's been decided that we won't. At least not yet. Elvis > > Elvis > >> >> David
