Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Wayland License Changing To LGPLv2

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    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.
    LGPL requires that your proprietary code also be supplied in such a format that the user can re-link it with a rebuilt/modified version of the library. Dynamic linking mostly takes care of this on typical desktop operating systems, but on consoles the norm is to ship only an encrypted and/or signed executable with any third-party library code statically linked.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    O'Fallon, MO
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    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)...
    Sure it makes sense -- Free Software isn't about price, it's about freedom. If you distribute a GPL app, regardless of the price or the venue, you must also provide access to the full, corresponding source code.

    Almost as importantly, one cannot legally distribute a GPL application in binary form and then restrict the end-user's ability to re-create such a binary from the source code. This is exactly the issue with software in the app store -- due to Apple's restrictions, one cannot compile the source code for VLC and install a customized (or not) binary of VLC on the iPhone without first agreeing to Apple's restrictive licensing.

    This is a GPL violation, and is no small issue, regardless of how much the software in question sells for.

    In regards to Wayland switching to LGPL, while dual licensing under MIT and LGPL might make the project used it more locations, it would be less Free, as it would undoubtedly end up being used in proprietary software.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    LGPL requires that your proprietary code also be supplied in such a format that the user can re-link it with a rebuilt/modified version of the library. Dynamic linking mostly takes care of this on typical desktop operating systems, but on consoles the norm is to ship only an encrypted and/or signed executable with any third-party library code statically linked.
    Ah, ok. Still, i don't really see Microsoft or Apple allowing an application to run a window manager on their hardware platforms anyway, so i really don't see this making any kind of difference in the real world.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    I was so happy when I saw Wayland is under MIT licence, but they must to destroy everything.
    Looks like I will use X.org for quite a long time.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    I was so happy when I saw Wayland is under MIT licence, but they must to destroy everything.
    Looks like I will use X.org for quite a long time.
    Stay off the drugs, son.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Why LGPLv2 and not LGPLv3?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonwil View Post
    Why LGPLv2 and not LGPLv3?
    They probably have their reasons.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    46

    Default

    It's like that that wayland intend to substitute X11?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •