6 ms·
You can use GPL for a library. Just as long as you don't care that the user needs to release their code under the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgp
by thehardsphere 9y ago
You can use GPL for a library. Just as long as you don't care that the user needs to release their code under the GPL.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
- pmontra 9y agoI'm a big fan of GPL but I don't think it's appropriate for libraries. In that page they give the example of readline, which is GPL because there are no alternatives and it is supposed to boost the GNU community. What happened is that there is at least an alternative now, the BSD-licensed libedit/editline http://thrysoee.dk/editline/ http://thrysoee.dk/editline/ My argument about licensing with GPL is that I want all the modifications back and not blackboxed in some software a company is making money from. They can make money out of my work (anyway it's more about marketing than sw development) but at least they have contribute back the improvements. Libraries are usually a small brick in the building. If they patch a LGPL library they must contribute back the patches and I think it should end there. The author shouldn't have any claim about all the other software they're linking it to. So LGPL, not GPL.
- gmueckl 9y agoLGPL also contains the re-linking requirement as a wrinkle. This makes a LGPL library impossible to use in mobile apps. The walled garden ecosystems are in conflict with it.