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.
Originally Posted by smitty3268
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.
Originally Posted by srg_13
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber
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.
Originally Posted by LightBit
Why LGPLv2 and not LGPLv3?
They probably have their reasons.
Originally Posted by jonwil
It's like that that wayland intend to substitute X11?
Tags for this Thread