On Tuesday, 2013-08-13, PCMan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Kevin Krammer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Monday, 2013-08-12, Ryan Bramantya wrote:
> >> > Obviously we at KDE (myself included) wouldn't put tons of our code > >> > under LGPL > >> > license terms if we thought it would be bad license, wouldn't we? > >> > >> From this point of view, I think we are same. I never persuade LXDE-Qt > >> > >> developers to use permissive license. I only convinced them to use LGPL > >> instead of GPL, both for libraries and for its native (non-3rd party) > >> applications. > > > > Sure, I don't have any issue with that. > > I just don't see what difference it would make, application code is not > > something anyone will link against, any modification is equally affected > > by LGPL or GPL license terms. > > This indeed makes differences. > Sometimes you may want to take some code from a GPL'd application, and > put that piece of code in your own library. It's not a rare case. > If your lib is LGPL, you cannot reuse GPL'd code in it. Otherwise your > lib will be infected and need to use GPL instead. Well, you always have the option of putting it into a second library and link with both. But it might be even better to check with the original authors if they are interested in working on a shared library, for the benfit of both projects. Code can usually be relicensed for that (has been done numerous times in KDE). In most case I've seen myself the extraction of application code into a library is serious work since most application code was not implemented with library considerations in mind (API and ABI stability, etc). > Using a more permissive license make your code easier to utilize for > others, and this is always good. The drawback, however, is you cannot > reuse any infectious GPL code from other projects. Foruntately most infectious code is never released under GPL, actually I have never heard of any virus being released under GPL. Those are mostly closed source. > We may gain more users and possibly more developers who like a more > permissive license, but we lose much potentially reusable code at the > same time. I don't think this would be a huge loss, it would only apply to code with authors who don't want their code to be reused. > Making lib code LGPL is reasonable and I support the idea. > Making application code LGPL is also reasonable since it's possible in > the future to move some code from the app to a lib, and keep it LGPL. > However, one should consider the risk that we'll not be able to reuse > GPL'd code from others. In applications you could. Since they are usually not something that is linked against there is no pratical difference in the two licenses. Once you look at indivudual code pieces their individual licenses kick in. > In conclusion, I support the idea of: > 1. libs use LGPL or MIT > 2. apps can use GPL or LGPL. Right, this part has served very well at KDE Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Lxde-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
