Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wayland License Changing To LGPLv2

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

  • Wayland License Changing To LGPLv2

    Phoronix: Wayland License Changing To LGPLv2
    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Why not at least LGPLv2 or later? It's good for license compatibility, and fends off the patent trolls, while still allowing well-behaved proprietary folks (i.e. those not trying to give you a trojan horse full of patents) to link against you.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
      Why not at least LGPLv2 or later? It's good for license compatibility, and fends off the patent trolls, while still allowing well-behaved proprietary folks (i.e. those not trying to give you a trojan horse full of patents) to link against you.
      LGPLv2 code can be relicensed as GPLv3 or later (it is allowed by LGPLv2).

      Comment


      • #4
        Why does he hate the BSDs so much? They are no fans of the GNU licenses and keeping the MIT license would certainly help Wayland's adoption.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
          Why does he hate the BSDs so much? They are no fans of the GNU licenses and keeping the MIT license would certainly help Wayland's adoption.
          Haha.

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

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Worst part is, there are people who would contribute back if they were able to use the code in the first place. But they can't because of arcane license incompatibilities because someone or another had to get a bug up their ass about making damn sure everybody shares always all times forever (even though most of the time that _forced_ sharing comes in the form of horrific patches that nobody wants to pull into the upstream codebase anyway). This is, in fact, the exact problem I already ran into with Cairo on a project I wanted to use it with but can't. We could have definitely done some performance work on it, and I have blanket approval to contribute patches back to any Open Source project we use, but Cairo's legal incompatibility with the Xbox precludes using it in the first place.

            I guess this is just annoying me so much because Wayland was MIT and now just changed to the (L)GPL out of paranoia about people not contributing bug fixes to libwayland-client. Sigh.

            Comment


            • #7
              Shit, if you want to get their work and turn if to yours without contributing back, GTFO and write your own damn code!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                This is, in fact, the exact problem I already ran into with Cairo on a project I wanted to use it with but can't. We could have definitely done some performance work on it, and I have blanket approval to contribute patches back to any Open Source project we use, but Cairo's legal incompatibility with the Xbox precludes using it in the first place.

                I guess this is just annoying me so much because Wayland was MIT and now just changed to the (L)GPL out of paranoia about people not contributing bug fixes to libwayland-client. Sigh.
                And I'm saddened by hearing this old nonsense. The 'Oh, I could have done soo much work on this if it weren't for the licence' bullshit. The Wayland devs knows exactly how to licence THEIR code, take it or leave it. And unlike those licence zelots lurking around saying how much they would contribute if the licence was another, the Wayland devs ARE actually doing the work. So let's just leave it to the code AUTHORS to decide what licence they want, whatever it may be and accept that without the petty whining. Beggars can't be choosers.

                And last I checked you could link to a lgpl library from proprietary code, so what is the problem?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
                  Why does he hate the BSDs so much? They are no fans of the GNU licenses and keeping the MIT license would certainly help Wayland's adoption.
                  Do you really think this was because he _hates_ the BSDs?
                  Stop and think about that for a second.

                  You are assuming that is why it was done, when in fact it could be an unintentional side-effect. Besides, nothing besides their own self-imposed restrictions precludes the BSDs from using it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                    And last I checked you could link to a lgpl library from proprietary code, so what is the problem?
                    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.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X