Wayland License Changing To LGPLv2

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-22-2010, 11:58 PM
smitty3268

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber

It's not really a problem with LGPL as such, but rather that it's likely impossible to satisfy both LGPL and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. Compare GPL-incompatible open-source licenses, ignoring that GPL-incompatible open-source licenses aren't frequently used for the purpose of establishing software monopolies.

I thought the issue was with the GPL license, not the LGPL. I can't really think of any reason those companies would be LGPL incompatible, all it requires is that you publish any changes you make within the library, anything outside can be as proprietary as you want.
11-23-2010, 02:36 AM
brent

Not sure if this is a good idea. One of the reasons why X was so successful was its very permissive license.
11-23-2010, 03:46 AM
krogy

i for one approve the choice of the license.

LGPL is very permissive license. You can do whatever you want but:

- distributing a modififyed version without releasing the changes.

- statically linking (not proven in court)

looks totally fair to me.

talking about consoles is absurd, period. why should open source programmers worry about some draconic agreements for some of the most closed down systems in existence?
AFAIK those agreements were the reason World of Goo was not open sourced with the humble bundle initiative. if this is the case, it is certain there won't be any contributions back from console crowd. so, why bother?
11-23-2010, 04:36 AM
KAMiKAZOW

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattst88

Which of Free, Net, Open, DragonFly, et al BSD have kernel modesetting?

Currently none and with Wayland now LGPLed, it'll probably stay that way.
11-23-2010, 04:43 AM
brent

Uhhh, "you can do everything BUT this and that" is exactly what makes the LGPL quite non-permissive.

Wayland wants to be the next standard windowing system for Linux/Unix. I hope the new license won't alienate possible users or contributors.
11-23-2010, 05:29 AM
XorEaxEax

Quote:

Originally Posted by brent

Wayland wants to be the next standard windowing system for Linux/Unix. I hope the new license won't alienate possible users or contributors.

Again, how would this alienate possible contributors and/or users? It makes no demands on THEIR code, so if they want to contribute, what's the problem? Only if they want to make changes to the Wayland code but NOT give those changes back to the Wayland project is this a problem, I can certainly see why the Wayland devs could care less about those filling that criteria.
11-23-2010, 05:58 AM
krogy

Quote:

Originally Posted by brent

Uhhh, "you can do everything BUT this and that" is exactly what makes the LGPL quite non-permissive.

Wayland wants to be the next standard windowing system for Linux/Unix. I hope the new license won't alienate possible users or contributors.

it is a matter of perspective. you say it's non permissive (absolute statement) i say is permissive enough for this particular purpouse (circumstantial statement).

the license does not affect the user whatsoever, and i don't see how it can alienate contributors. it will only alienate those who didn't want to contribute to begin with or those that have irrational fears against the GPL world.
neither case deserve the license to be changed.
11-23-2010, 06:05 AM
krogy

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW

Currently none and with Wayland now LGPLed, it'll probably stay that way.

this does not make sense. you can also run X over KMS. regardless, AFAIK Wayland is on user space. it is no different than GNOME, KDE or any (L)GPL program out there. so if someone ends up not using it it's their own choice.
11-23-2010, 06:10 AM
srg_13

Quote:

Originally Posted by elanthis

I'm saddened by this. Debates about licenses aside, this instantly restricts the number of places that Wayland can be used. (L)GPL code doesn't exist in any Xbox, PS3, Wii, DS, etc. games because those platforms are locked down (and yes, I agree that sucks!) and don't allow the applications to uphold the (L)GPL requirements. I forgot what the verdict on (L)GPL on iPhone was, but I believe it was the same.

Nothing wrong with LGPL on iPhone - the OS itself actually ships with both LGPL and GPL libraries (like libiconv). You can download the source here: http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/ios-40/

GPL can be a problem in app store apps (but it makes little sense for free apps, like VLC where some people are kicking up a stink over nothing) but nobody is going to use Wayland in an applicaiton...
11-23-2010, 08:46 AM
crazycheese

Intel-i-station in rd? :)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page