Also consistently use LGPL-2.1-or-later as default license
Details
Details
- Reviewers
cordlandwehr - Group Reviewers
Plasma - Commits
- R242:a08449a9a2cb: templates: Convert license statements to SPDX headers
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R242 Plasma Framework (Library)
- Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable. - Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.
Comment Actions
Looks good to me and I agree that it is a good idea to consistently license everything as LGPL-2.1-or-later.
My only question is, how is the X-KDE-PluginInfo-License value is evaluated? Are we free to write any value? Or do we have to extend some mechanism? I would be great to also use SPDX identifiers there!
| templates/cpp-plasmoid/src/package/metadata.desktop | ||
|---|---|---|
| 96 | does this work with our PluginInfo mechanism? actually, I did not yet look into the SPDX license handling in desktop files or any other tooling for outbound licenses for libraries, plugins or applications; same question for the same changes below in the desktop files | |
Comment Actions
From what I can tell, Plasma itself currently ignores the license info, e.g. there is no display of About data for plasmoids or wallpaper plugins (sadly, IMHO, but no resources to fix myself).
In general X-KDE-PluginInfo+* is feed to KPluginMetaData, which just holds the raw string. The string itself is evaluated e,g,in KAboutPluginDialog via KAboutLicense::byKeyword(), the only place I know about currently (besides deprecated KAboutData::fromPluginMetaData, which does the same KAboutLicense::byKeyword).
KAboutLicense itself once was already extended to support keywords (see D6672), but needs update to latest SPDX identifiers,
| templates/cpp-plasmoid/src/package/metadata.desktop | ||
|---|---|---|
| 96 | Hmpf, this is outdated version, forgot to append to commit before arc diff. | |