3 ms·
> This is a clearly defined process in the C world Rather, shared-library mechanisms are platform-specific. ELF shared libraries are different from Windows DLL
by _ph_ 7y ago
> This is a clearly defined process in the C world
Rather, shared-library mechanisms are platform-specific. ELF shared libraries are different from Windows DLL's, for instance. The LGPL covers both, because it's mum on implementation details.
The abstraction is basically the same. The application has some symbolic references satisfied dynamically by the library, and possibly vice versa.
Shared libraries are not limited to C, but in the context it should have been clear what I was talking about. Most importantly, most Common Lisp systems are not using shared libraries in the way C and languages using C style bindings do.
> The LLGPL is an easy amendment to make those intentions clear.
I wouldn't use it because it's a rare license, and I'm not a lawyer. It's best to use one of the top five or so popular licenses. Licenses aren't programming languages; it's okay to use the popular thing.
I also am strongly advocating not using rare licenses. But they are still preferrable to licenses which do not work as intended for technical reasons. LLGPL is one thing, I would rather recommend a BSD style license, as it is very well known, has no technical problems involved and is actually the license of the original Numpy code. Why choose a different license for a reimplementation of Numpy?
- armitron 7y agoBecause it's not a derived work (not based on numpy code) thus the library author is free to choose a license that he feels best protects his code and aligns with his interests. LGPL offers significant protections that can not be found in BSD.
- _ph_ 7y agoBecause it's not a derived work (not based on numpy code) thus the library author is free to choose a license that he feels best protects his code and aligns with his interests. In this case, the author could choose LGPL even if it were derived on the numpy code. So yes, technically the author is free to choose about the license. However, unless specific and significant reasons require this, I would find it just appropriate to choose the same or a similar license. LGPL offers significant protections that can not be found in BSD. Well, I asked the author - without ever getting an answer - whether there would be specific reasons, why the LGPL would be needed. For example, because of requirements by his employer or other specific reasons. Other than that, yes, people always claim that the GPL style license offers especial "protections". But one has to look at the environment. We are talking about a port (derived or not) of the BSD licensed Numpy, intended to run e.g. on the BSD licensed SBCL. So if the library would require special "protections", one could name them.