4 ms·

Boden author here, a bit overwhelmed by the feedback. We are in the process of releasing a new version that will change the license to LGPL / Commercial.

by gitoby 7y ago

jacobush 7y ago
LGPL has the same problem! Users must be able to relink an application with their own version of the LGPL library. This is impossible for almost all iOS scenarios and only very slightly easier on Android. This is often overlooked. If you want to keep LGPL you can investigate "linking exception", it's used by some GNU libraries if I recall correctly. This has been discussed for a decade: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/459833/which-open-source-licenses-are-compatible-with-the-apples-iphone-and-its-offici https://stackoverflow.com/questions/459833/which-open-source... https://roadfiresoftware.com/2013/08/the-problem-with-using-lgpl-v2-1-code-in-an-ios-app/ https://roadfiresoftware.com/2013/08/the-problem-with-using-...
- DerDangDerDang 7y ago
  It’s not unreasonable to expect people to buy a commercial licence if they’re releasing to a commercial app store
  - kbutler 7y ago
    Is it reasonable to expect people to buy a commercial license if releasing a free app to a commercial app store? Probably depends on the reasonable(?) license fee.
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      If it's a truly free app, why not release your source code?
      - ctvo 7y ago
        For any number of reasons that the author should be able to decide and not be forced into doing? The original comment was that this would limit adoption due to licensing restrictions, and I'm not sure how this change helps.
        vorpalhex 7y ago
        So it's very conceivable that if your app is producing money for you, you don't want to open source the magic as it were - but if you're making money, you shouldn't expect a free ride. However, if you aren't making money, and are still using the work of others, then it's good to contribute back - even if that's just by open sourcing your work for others to learn from and study. It's not required, but neither is it required for this framework to have a free tier, much less a truly free one that helps protect the future of your app.
      - smashedtoatoms 7y ago
        Maybe because some mega corp will figure out how to offer it as a service, and they'll get nothing for it. I support them defending themselves with a way to maybe make money on it. If they can't eat, they can't update the code.
        vorpalhex 7y ago
        Then it's not truly free, buy a license. You don't get to eat off the free labor of your framework developers.
      - kbutler 7y ago
        The GPL is not compatible with Apple's App Store restrictions, so giving away your source code is not sufficient to comply with the GPL. "The primary problem is that Apple imposes numerous legal restrictions on use and distribution...through the iTunes Store Terms of Service, which is forbidden by section 6 of GPLv2." https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance See also https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/59495 https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/59495 There is also a significant difference between giving away free applications and giving away the source code. Both from an internal perspective (the company may want to charge for the product or related products or products on other platforms now or in the future) and an external perspective (the app may require other software for which the company does not have rights to release source code). "Here's a free loaf of bread." "Why don't you just give me the bread factory and the farms that supplied the ingredients?"
- gitoby 7y ago
  Please take the following with a grain of salt. I am not a legal expert, but we have competent US lawyers assessing this for us right now. The main issue we see with the GPL is that your app has to be effectively licensed under the GPL too, which makes your app's license incompatible with the iOS App Store's terms of service. This is apparently not the case with the LGPL. Yes, you will have to provide a way for users to relink your application to another version of Boden. As far as I can see (I am not a lawyer), this can happen outside of the iOS App Store. Our US lawyers are currently investigating this. As soon as we get a reliable assessment from the legal experts, we'll add an LGPL option to Boden.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Tell me, when your user has downloaded an app and wants to relink it with their custom version of Boden, how do they proceed?
    - detaro 7y ago
      LGPL 2.1 6c - on request, you provide the user with object code they can link against their custom version. Should be enough, if no other terms of the app store get in the way? (VLC is an example of a well-known program that relicensed to LGPL and now is available in the app store, so clearly it is possible)
      - jacobush 7y ago
        And how does the user then get their relinked app onto their phone? (There are plenty of App Store apps with LGPL code in them. The question is, should they be there? And VLC is not a good example, since presumably, I don't know - but I think all of it is LGPL or in any case, open source. The user can rebuild all of VLC in that example. The situation with Boden is going to be that a an app, probably proprietary, has a Boden library in it.)
        detaro 7y ago
        Isn't the problem of "how do I get the app onto my phone" the same in both cases?
king_magic 7y ago
Even that makes this a complete nonstarter for almost every one of my clients.
- DerDangDerDang 7y ago
  Your clients are unwilling to pay for a commercial licence?
  - king_magic 7y ago
    No, my clients are unwilling to build against LGPL software.
    - detaro 7y ago
      Then they can buy a commercial license and need not touch any LGPL software.
adelarsq 7y ago
Why not MIT License?
- gitoby 7y ago
  We have put a lot of effort into investigating and assessing different licensing options. There are two different perspectives on this: the user perspective where MIT of course seems to be among the most attractive ones at first glance. Then, there's the company perspective: what is the business model and how is development going to be sustainable in the long run? We have come to the conclusion that LGPL is currently the best option to align both of these perspectives and provide the best value in the long run. If GPL/LGPL isn't sufficient for you, we'll be offering a commercial license with fair terms as an alternative.
denisw 7y ago
Consider the Mozilla Public License (MPL) [1]. It is copyleft in the sense that modifications to the library must be MPL-licensed as well, but doesn't impose any restrictions on apps merely using the library. This avoids the LGPL’s complicated re-linking requirements which are very hard to fulfill for iOS apps (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread). [1]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/
app4soft 7y ago
Hi! I vote for keep Boden licensed under GPL. Lets keep Boden FLOSS forever!

Boden author here, a bit overwhelmed by the feedback. We are in the process of releasing a new version that will change the license to LGPL / Commercial.

by gitoby 7y ago

Boden author here, a bit overwhelmed by the feedback. We are in the process of releasing a new version that will change the license to LGPL / Commercial.

jacobush 7y ago

LGPL has the same problem! Users must be able to relink an application with their own version of the LGPL library. This is impossible for almost all iOS scenarios and only very slightly easier on Android. This is often overlooked. If you want to keep LGPL you can investigate "linking exception", it's used by some GNU libraries if I recall correctly. This has been discussed for a decade: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/459833/which-open-source-licenses-are-compatible-with-the-apples-iphone-and-its-offici https://stackoverflow.com/questions/459833/which-open-source... https://roadfiresoftware.com/2013/08/the-problem-with-using-lgpl-v2-1-code-in-an-ios-app/ https://roadfiresoftware.com/2013/08/the-problem-with-using-...

DerDangDerDang 7y ago
It’s not unreasonable to expect people to buy a commercial licence if they’re releasing to a commercial app store
- kbutler 7y ago
  Is it reasonable to expect people to buy a commercial license if releasing a free app to a commercial app store? Probably depends on the reasonable(?) license fee.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    If it's a truly free app, why not release your source code?
    - ctvo 7y ago
      For any number of reasons that the author should be able to decide and not be forced into doing? The original comment was that this would limit adoption due to licensing restrictions, and I'm not sure how this change helps.
      - vorpalhex 7y ago
        So it's very conceivable that if your app is producing money for you, you don't want to open source the magic as it were - but if you're making money, you shouldn't expect a free ride. However, if you aren't making money, and are still using the work of others, then it's good to contribute back - even if that's just by open sourcing your work for others to learn from and study. It's not required, but neither is it required for this framework to have a free tier, much less a truly free one that helps protect the future of your app.
    - smashedtoatoms 7y ago
      Maybe because some mega corp will figure out how to offer it as a service, and they'll get nothing for it. I support them defending themselves with a way to maybe make money on it. If they can't eat, they can't update the code.
      - vorpalhex 7y ago
        Then it's not truly free, buy a license. You don't get to eat off the free labor of your framework developers.
    - kbutler 7y ago
      The GPL is not compatible with Apple's App Store restrictions, so giving away your source code is not sufficient to comply with the GPL. "The primary problem is that Apple imposes numerous legal restrictions on use and distribution...through the iTunes Store Terms of Service, which is forbidden by section 6 of GPLv2." https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance See also https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/59495 https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/59495 There is also a significant difference between giving away free applications and giving away the source code. Both from an internal perspective (the company may want to charge for the product or related products or products on other platforms now or in the future) and an external perspective (the app may require other software for which the company does not have rights to release source code). "Here's a free loaf of bread." "Why don't you just give me the bread factory and the farms that supplied the ingredients?"
gitoby 7y ago
Please take the following with a grain of salt. I am not a legal expert, but we have competent US lawyers assessing this for us right now. The main issue we see with the GPL is that your app has to be effectively licensed under the GPL too, which makes your app's license incompatible with the iOS App Store's terms of service. This is apparently not the case with the LGPL. Yes, you will have to provide a way for users to relink your application to another version of Boden. As far as I can see (I am not a lawyer), this can happen outside of the iOS App Store. Our US lawyers are currently investigating this. As soon as we get a reliable assessment from the legal experts, we'll add an LGPL option to Boden.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Tell me, when your user has downloaded an app and wants to relink it with their custom version of Boden, how do they proceed?
  - detaro 7y ago
    LGPL 2.1 6c - on request, you provide the user with object code they can link against their custom version. Should be enough, if no other terms of the app store get in the way? (VLC is an example of a well-known program that relicensed to LGPL and now is available in the app store, so clearly it is possible)
    - jacobush 7y ago
      And how does the user then get their relinked app onto their phone? (There are plenty of App Store apps with LGPL code in them. The question is, should they be there? And VLC is not a good example, since presumably, I don't know - but I think all of it is LGPL or in any case, open source. The user can rebuild all of VLC in that example. The situation with Boden is going to be that a an app, probably proprietary, has a Boden library in it.)
      - detaro 7y ago
        Isn't the problem of "how do I get the app onto my phone" the same in both cases?

king_magic 7y ago

Even that makes this a complete nonstarter for almost every one of my clients.

DerDangDerDang 7y ago
Your clients are unwilling to pay for a commercial licence?
- king_magic 7y ago
  No, my clients are unwilling to build against LGPL software.
  - detaro 7y ago
    Then they can buy a commercial license and need not touch any LGPL software.

adelarsq 7y ago

Why not MIT License?

gitoby 7y ago
We have put a lot of effort into investigating and assessing different licensing options. There are two different perspectives on this: the user perspective where MIT of course seems to be among the most attractive ones at first glance. Then, there's the company perspective: what is the business model and how is development going to be sustainable in the long run? We have come to the conclusion that LGPL is currently the best option to align both of these perspectives and provide the best value in the long run. If GPL/LGPL isn't sufficient for you, we'll be offering a commercial license with fair terms as an alternative.

denisw 7y ago

Consider the Mozilla Public License (MPL) [1]. It is copyleft in the sense that modifications to the library must be MPL-licensed as well, but doesn't impose any restrictions on apps merely using the library. This avoids the LGPL’s complicated re-linking requirements which are very hard to fulfill for iOS apps (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread). [1]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/

app4soft 7y ago

Hi! I vote for keep Boden licensed under GPL. Lets keep Boden FLOSS forever!