Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Wayland License Changing To LGPLv2

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    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.
    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    333

    Default

    Not sure if this is a good idea. One of the reasons why X was so successful was its very permissive license.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    i for one approve the choice of the license.

    LGPL is very permissive license. You can do whatever you want but:

    - distributing a modififyed version without releasing the changes.

    - statically linking (not proven in court)

    looks totally fair to me.

    talking about consoles is absurd, period. why should open source programmers worry about some draconic agreements for some of the most closed down systems in existence?
    AFAIK those agreements were the reason World of Goo was not open sourced with the humble bundle initiative. if this is the case, it is certain there won't be any contributions back from console crowd. so, why bother?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    Which of Free, Net, Open, DragonFly, et al BSD have kernel modesetting?
    Currently none and with Wayland now LGPLed, it'll probably stay that way.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    333

    Default

    Uhhh, "you can do everything BUT this and that" is exactly what makes the LGPL quite non-permissive.

    Wayland wants to be the next standard windowing system for Linux/Unix. I hope the new license won't alienate possible users or contributors.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brent View Post
    Wayland wants to be the next standard windowing system for Linux/Unix. I hope the new license won't alienate possible users or contributors.
    Again, how would this alienate possible contributors and/or users? It makes no demands on THEIR code, so if they want to contribute, what's the problem? Only if they want to make changes to the Wayland code but NOT give those changes back to the Wayland project is this a problem, I can certainly see why the Wayland devs could care less about those filling that criteria.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brent View Post
    Uhhh, "you can do everything BUT this and that" is exactly what makes the LGPL quite non-permissive.

    Wayland wants to be the next standard windowing system for Linux/Unix. I hope the new license won't alienate possible users or contributors.
    it is a matter of perspective. you say it's non permissive (absolute statement) i say is permissive enough for this particular purpouse (circumstantial statement).

    the license does not affect the user whatsoever, and i don't see how it can alienate contributors. it will only alienate those who didn't want to contribute to begin with or those that have irrational fears against the GPL world.
    neither case deserve the license to be changed.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    Currently none and with Wayland now LGPLed, it'll probably stay that way.
    this does not make sense. you can also run X over KMS. regardless, AFAIK Wayland is on user space. it is no different than GNOME, KDE or any (L)GPL program out there. so if someone ends up not using it it's their own choice.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    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.
    Nothing wrong with LGPL on iPhone - the OS itself actually ships with both LGPL and GPL libraries (like libiconv). You can download the source here: http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/ios-40/

    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) but nobody is going to use Wayland in an applicaiton...

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Intel-i-station in rd?

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
  •