Re: Licensing for cxx-kde-frameworks (Rust bridge for KF6)

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2024-11-03, Neal Gompa  wrote:
> It's not that simple. The reason I suggested MPL-2.0 is because
> LGPL-2.1-or-later is effectively the same as GPL-2.0-or-later with
> Rust because it's statically linked.
>
> MPL-2.0 preserves the copyleft at a per source file level, but allows
> the binary artifact to have a composition of compatible licenses
> (including the GNU ones). This is the least messy for Rust bindings to
> LGPL libraries.

On second thoughts, I'm not even sure we need the copyleft protections
that much here, since
 - The rust bindings is probably quite shallow shells
 - The real 'important' things lives in already (l)gpl licensed
   components.

That also makes the usual Rust MIT/Apache2 dual license useful. We just
also need to make sure that people knows the thing effectively is (l)gpl.

I think I at least won't object to adding a snippet to licensing
policies that Rust code can be MIT/Apache2

/Sune

Re: KDE Review request: md4qt

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2024-11-04, Sune Vuorela  wrote:
[looks like half a sentence disappeared between brain and keyboard]
> On a more 'matter of taste'-note, it does look like someone has went
> overboard with templates. While I like and understand templates,
I think this might be a bit too much and could probably be simplified.

/Sune