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.
Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber
Not sure if this is a good idea. One of the reasons why X was so successful was its very permissive license.
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?
Currently none and with Wayland now LGPLed, it'll probably stay that way.
Originally Posted by mattst88
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.
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.
Originally Posted by brent
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).
Originally Posted by brent
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.
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.
Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW
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/
Originally Posted by elanthis
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...
Intel-i-station in rd?
Tags for this Thread