Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clutter's Cogl Relicensed To Be More Permissive

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

  • Clutter's Cogl Relicensed To Be More Permissive

    Phoronix: Clutter's Cogl Relicensed To Be More Permissive

    An effort led by Intel Linux developers has resulted in Cogl being made availablw now under the MIT license instead of the LGPL. Cogl is the GNOME/Clutter project that provides a low-level OpenGL abstraction library...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU3MTY

  • #2
    probably a very silly question but...
    cogl+mesa=mantle-like setting utilised by linux for years?

    Comment


    • #3
      >__<

      ruined my day

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Annabel View Post
        ruined my day
        This is Intel... companies have a track record of not liking the (L)GPL.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by phoronix View Post
          Phoronix: Clutter's Cogl Relicensed To Be More Permissive

          An effort led by Intel Linux developers has resulted in Cogl being made availablw now under the MIT license instead of the LGPL. Cogl is the GNOME/Clutter project that provides a low-level OpenGL abstraction library...

          http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU3MTY
          Waiting for Honton.

          GNOME is killing copyleft blah blah.

          He'll be here any moment now.... or not?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jakubo View Post
            probably a very silly question but...
            cogl+mesa=mantle-like setting utilised by linux for years?
            cogl sits on top of OpenGL, while Mantle was supposed to replace OpenGL.
            cogl is the painkiller (a shitty one), Mantle is/was supposed to be the cure (a good one).

            Comment


            • #7
              Because if you don't use copyleft, evil companies will steal your code and all will be lost!
              Oh wait, companies publish and contribute to permissive code...

              Sarcasm aside, it's a good news. Permissive code contributed by corporations is the sign that open source is valid as a business model, and not just because people believe in it or that it is protected by (non universal and hard to enforce) copyright laws.
              And being economically attractive is generally stronger than just being legal.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm typically happy with lgpl + static link clause. Dynamic linking in some cases is a huge inconvenience for packaging.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't get the hate of GPL fans. If people understand the benefits of open source, we don't need a complex and (legally) messy license like GPL. More and more people and companies are embracing open source, so we're slowly getting to that point.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jakubo View Post
                    probably a very silly question but...
                    cogl+mesa=mantle-like setting utilised by linux for years?
                    No, quite the opposite. Cogl provides some additional abstraction on top of OpenGL or OpenGL ES.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
                      I'm typically happy with lgpl + static link clause. Dynamic linking in some cases is a huge inconvenience for packaging.
                      No, you can just bundle them. And dynamic linking allows you to update the library after release, which is important, especially on moving platforms like Linux.

                      Originally posted by brent View Post
                      I don't get the hate of GPL fans. If people understand the benefits of open source, we don't need a complex and (legally) messy license like GPL. More and more people and companies are embracing open source, so we're slowly getting to that point.
                      If people understand that everyone working together makes accomplishing goals easier, we don't need capitalism. Except they don't. People always try to gain more power/convenience or less things to do. If you can stop working and still receive all the benefits, why work? That's why communism failed, and that's why BSD-licensed software is used in proprietary software.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                        No, you can just bundle them. And dynamic linking allows you to update the library after release, which is important, especially on moving platforms like Linux.



                        If people understand that everyone working together makes accomplishing goals easier, we don't need capitalism. Except they don't. People always try to gain more power/convenience or less things to do. If you can stop working and still receive all the benefits, why work? That's why communism failed, and that's why BSD-licensed software is used in proprietary software.
                        You have it backward. Use of BSD software in proprietary software is not a failure.
                        The goal of permissive licenses is to increase contributions to the shared sources, not to prevent people from using without contributing.
                        Just as the goal of capitalism is to increase the shared wealth, not to prevent people from having more than their neighbors.

                        Corporations use permissive code because:
                        - it reduces the burden of maintaining their patches against upstream compared to keeping them proprietary, and help them influence upstream.
                        - it reduces their legal cost and risk, and and won't limit their choices compared to copyleft.
                        In other word, they use permissive licenses because it's better for them, not because they are required too.
                        Last edited by erendorn; 01-15-2014, 02:07 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
                          I'm typically happy with lgpl + static link clause. Dynamic linking in some cases is a huge inconvenience for packaging.
                          Why would you need an extra clause?? It is perfectly okay to statically link against LGPL libraries as long as what you are linking is something using the library and not modifications to the library.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                            Because if you don't use copyleft, evil companies will steal your code and all will be lost!
                            Oh wait, companies publish and contribute to permissive code...
                            Apparently not, if they did, LGPL would never ever be a problem. It is only a burden if companies DO NOT want to contribute back.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                              Corporations use permissive code because:
                              - it reduces the burden of maintaining their patches against upstream compared to keeping them proprietary, and help them influence upstream.
                              - it reduces their legal cost and risk, and and won't limit their choices compared to copyleft.
                              In other word, they use permissive licenses because it's better for them, not because they are required too.
                              The first point applies to copyleft software just as well. But in case of permissive licenses, corporations can and do choose to not disclose their code in order not to have it benefit their competitors. And that's a loss for everyone but the corporation (the corporation itself gets a lot of work done for free).
                              The second point is questionable. Their choices should never change, because there is no reason for them to change. If they decide on a license given enough thought, they shouldn't need to reverse their decision and back out of it at any point in time. As for legal cost and risk, I see no risk anywhere, and there are still costs either way. The only difference is license length (which is needed for copyleft, since it relies on certain nuances of copyright law), and the GPLv3 is written well enough that it covers a lot of corner cases (which is another reason why it's long).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X