I have to confess being very new to this list I dont get what your problem is.
I am not an experienced C++ coder but from the very little I know C/C++ development take advantage of shared libraries , LGPL does not touch shared libraries. The way I see it because of how popular way of coding shared libraries are LGPL would be better called LMIT or LBSD since its far closer to those licenses than it is to GPL. It frees you up to close source a ton of things. All you have to do is take your code from inside TinyCC and move it to shared library and voila you can close source it , end of story. Sure the part that is inside TinyC calling the shared library would have to be open sourced but then what the value of it is to close source it anyway ? As a matter of fact thank you for starting this thread because I also assumed that LGPL was a viral licesnse like GPL and much closer to GPL , now I see that it can be easily be used in place of MIT and BSD license for project depending on shared libraries which is a vast majority of projects. Now I understand why LGPL is so popular. And If I am not mistaken TinyCC can be used as a library anyway which make your life even easier. Of course all that assumes that you will be making a product of substantial profit, or else is just none sense talk. On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM John B <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. I know it can seem that way but I guess it comes down to what I > want to build and how the derivative will help. It would almost reverse > engineer half of the project through common sense if I released the source > of this one library, otherwise I wouldn't really come out of the shadows > and ask. Releasing code and acknowledgements should be a personal choice > not an enforced one. Some proprietary software makes more sense than > others to do this. So another thing is about flexibility. I just can't > release derivative code. LuaJit it is. I will check back again now and > then on the status of TinyCC; it has been a favorite of mine for a couple > of years now. And by favorite, I mean tinker around with it in my own lab, > because it wasn't going anywhere else sadly. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] > <[email protected]> on behalf of > Stephan Beal <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 2, 2016 3:21 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world > use. > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:01 PM, John B <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Despite the implications that I am a bad person for asking, I think the >> discussion is healthy for the project. Because bsd license I believe would >> be 100x healthier for the project. People would absolutely contribute >> back, but in a de-identified way. I Absolutely believe this. >> > > fwiw, i Public Domain and/or MIT all my sources. i'm not a fan of viral > licenses (and avoid the GPL like the plague), but i have never experienced > that the LGPL has been a real hindrance to a library's use (as opposed to > imagined, when people misunderstand it to be viral to their code). i.e. i > think you're over-reacting to it being LGPL. (If it were GPL, i'd be in > full agreement with you.) > > -- > ----- stephan beal > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ > http://gplus.to/sgbeal > "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of > those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel >
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
