If libev is a well-worn library that we can depend on like libc, then
the risk is small to just link it up. We can depend on it to kickass
for free.
However, if there is a bug in the event loop that we need an emergency
fix for then we have to consider the license if we want to ship portions
of modified libev code. If the license is incompatible, we need to
pressure libev to push the fix.
When the source was closed we didn't have to consider the licenses as
much. We could include almost anything we wanted without having to deal
with the ramifications of distribution.
Again, this could all be moot if libev's LICENSE is compatible with ALv2
(which looks like it is). But the same consideration needs to be taken
for other event libraries with different licenses.
Cheers,
Andrew
Leif Hedstrom wrote:
On 11/01/2009 01:26 PM, Andrew Hsu wrote:
Is it compatible with ALv2 (I'm not a lawyer but my review of libev's
LICENSE file looks like it is)?
Does it have to be? It's a library that we wouldn't include the source
for (I assume), just depend on. I mean, there's plenty of Linux stuff
under GPL we depend on (like, libc). :).
