On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 09:51 Sune Vuorela wrote:
> 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.
> >
people lgpl does not forbid
On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 7:20 AM Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 09:51 Sune Vuorela wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> > R
On 04/11/24 12:49 am, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
KDE's Licensing Policy (https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy)
doesn't list the MPL(2.0) as allowed license for "source code and related data
files in KDE repositories".
This doesn't mean that we couldn't allow the MPL2.0 for Rust bindings
