If we ignore all directories other than src, the distribution is the following:
KConfig:
```
1 LGPL-2.0-only
2 BSD-2-Clause
2 GPL-2.0-or-later
4 LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-LGPL
53 LGPL-2.0-or-later
```
KI18n:
```
2 LGPL-2.1-only OR LGPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-K
Hi Ayush,
If you look at the specific files licensed under MIT in KConfig, those
are tests only. And files with a GPL-2.0-or-later license belong to
executables that you likely won't use to create the bindings. I might
be okay to ignore their licenses.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:16 PM Andreas Cord
Hi Ayush,
thank you for bringing this topic up to the mailing list. From the choice of
licenses, IMHO it comes to either use a permissive license that is compatible
with as much source code as possible (that would be probably either MIT or
BSD-2-Clause) or using a smallest common denominator co
I am the author of [ki18n](https://crates.io/crates/ki18n) Rust
bindings and am currently working on bindings for
[kconfig](https://invent.kde.org/oreki/kconfig-rs) as a part of Season
of KDE.
When I was trying to decide on a License for KConfig bindings, I was
informed by Jos van den Oever, my me
