Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wayland License Changing To LGPLv2

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    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.

    Comment


    • #22
      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.

      Comment


      • #23
        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.

        Comment


        • #24
          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.

          Comment


          • #25
            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.

            Comment


            • #26
              Why LGPLv2 and not LGPLv3?

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by jonwil View Post
                Why LGPLv2 and not LGPLv3?
                They probably have their reasons.

                Comment


                • #28
                  It's like that that wayland intend to substitute X11?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X