View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
fschaefer
Joined: 03 Aug 2008 Posts: 4 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: LGPL vs. commercial application vs. shared library |
|
|
I wonder if someone was able to compile the gtkD stuff into a shared library on POSIX systems. As long as gtkD is only available as a static library the LGPL seems to prevent the development of a commercial application (without opening the source).
So my questions are:
1) Has someone succeeded in creating a gtkD shared library on POSIX systems?
2) Why is the LGPL picked for gtkD? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mike Wey
Joined: 07 May 2007 Posts: 428
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | So my questions are:
1) Has someone succeeded in creating a gtkD shared library on POSIX systems? |
I haven't had any luck createing a working one with dmd, i didn't try gdc.
Quote: | 2) Why is the LGPL picked for gtkD? |
I don't know, maybe Antonio chose LGPL because thats what GTK uses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fschaefer
Joined: 03 Aug 2008 Posts: 4 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike Wey wrote: | I haven't had any luck createing a working one with dmd, i didn't try gdc. |
And I haven't had luck with gdc.
Mike Wey wrote: |
I don't know, maybe Antonio chose LGPL because thats what GTK uses. |
Maybe a MIT/BSD style license would be better!? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mike Wey
Joined: 07 May 2007 Posts: 428
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just tried gdc with no luck, maybe i'm doing something wrong.
Quote: | Maybe a MIT/BSD style license would be better!? |
Or something like the one fron FLTK: http://www.fltk.org/COPYING.php
BSD is my favorite tough. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fschaefer
Joined: 03 Aug 2008 Posts: 4 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike Wey wrote: | Just tried gdc with no luck, maybe i'm doing something wrong. |
I even tortured libtool with gdc all day long and had no luck... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ant
Joined: 06 Mar 2004 Posts: 306 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike Wey wrote: | Quote: | So my questions are:
1) Has someone succeeded in creating a gtkD shared library on POSIX systems? |
I haven't had any luck createing a working one with dmd, i didn't try gdc.
Quote: | 2) Why is the LGPL picked for gtkD? |
I don't know, maybe Antonio chose LGPL because thats what GTK uses. |
I like the LGPL.
I don't really understand why LGPL doesn't allow static linking, I don't mind that.
We should ask Walter for support to create shared libs (I thought that was done some time ago...).
Ant |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Auria
Joined: 29 May 2006 Posts: 44
|
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Considering D doesn't yet support dyanmic librairies properly, maybe a modified LGPL license allowing allowing static linking could be good |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kaarna
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 92 Location: Finland
|
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. If the intention is not to force everybody to make their projects LGPL or GPL, then I too think that maybe gtkD could keep the current LGPL licence and add an exception to the licence that will allow static linking.
I guess that would mean it would be quite identical to BSD-licence then, but it could be said in the exception that you can link statically but you'll have to release changes to the current gtkD files... And any file that you add (those would typically be part of your own program), is free for you to decide the licence.
The exception could be removed when (if ever...) dynamic linking becomes easy and reliable in D.
This way you could use gtkD for commercial and proprietary code too. Currently it's legally and technically impossible, even if that's not the intention of Ant.
One related thing is that: it would be good if every developer who's been working with gtkD would add some "forever" working email address to the AUTHORS file. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kaarna
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 92 Location: Finland
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok.
I've decided to not use GtkD anymore in one of my own applications because the licencing problem hasn't been solved. I've decided that I'm going to try to make that app a commercial/proprietary app. I'm also going to release an MIT licenced support library for my app, so that other's can benefit from some of the code.
But since it isn't possible to do dynamic linking with D or GtkD, I can't use GtkD anymore. (Boohoo. )
Basicly this isn't any of your problem, and everyone is free to licence their work as they please, but if you'd want me to continue using GtkD (why would anyone want that?...) I see a couple of licencing options in the horizon, as I said in my post above.
1. X11/MIT or BSD style licence.
2. LGPL licence with an exception that will allow static linking with other licences and proprietary code. (Possibly until dynamic linking is possible and easy with the current D compilers.)
Here's a text about some exceptions in GPL-licenced works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
Usually a licence change will require the approval of all the developers who have ever contributed to the project. It's always difficult to contact all the developers, especially as there are no contact info in the AUTHORS list. I guess there are some contributors in there, who have participated only a little? (I'm no legal expert, so don't listen to me, but) I guess we could go on with a licence change if Ant, okibi, Mike Wey, JJR, me, and propably hauptmech would agree on it. (Did I forget someone? Sorry if I did.) But the main question really goes on to Ant, because he's the person who started and created GtkD in the first place.
So, what do you all think? Feel free to say no.
P.S. a file called COPYING containing the licence should propably be added to the svn. Now there's only a mention of the licence in the README file. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
okibi
Joined: 04 Jan 2007 Posts: 170
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would be fine with keeping the LGPL and adding an exception, but didn't version 3 of th LGPL fix this problem? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mike Wey
Joined: 07 May 2007 Posts: 428
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
A statically linked application is a combined work witch falls under section 4 of the LGPL v3. Witch states that you should not restrict modification of the used library.
more specifically section 4d:
Quote: | d) Do one of the following:
0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
okibi
Joined: 04 Jan 2007 Posts: 170
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, thanks for the info! I thought I heard that it contained such exception, but I guess I was wrong. However, I'm fine with LGPL with an exception if that works for you guys.
Ant, how do you feel? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ant
Joined: 06 Mar 2004 Posts: 306 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
okibi wrote: | Ah, thanks for the info! I thought I heard that it contained such exception, but I guess I was wrong. However, I'm fine with LGPL with an exception if that works for you guys.
Ant, how do you feel? |
LGPL with an exception.
This exception could explicitly say that is temporary.
Ant |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nauk-d
Joined: 18 May 2009 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello everyone, first let me compliment you on the great work on gtkD. Coming to my question: What is the status on adding a static link exception to the LGPL? Seems like the discussion ended in favor for it, if I read right, but the license file / headers still are LGPL with no mention of an exception.
Thanks in advance,
Nauk |
|
Back to top |
|
|
okibi
Joined: 04 Jan 2007 Posts: 170
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have added a new license to GtkD in the COPYING file in the latest svn commit (682).
The license contains the LGPL Version 3 with a few exceptions.
Please let me know how you all feel in regards to the added exceptions. If every agrees to them, they will be included in our next release. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|