3 ms·
I want to root for it but I think the LGPL license ruins it as long as there are BSD or MIT licenses alternatives that are good enough. Firefox might implement
by parvenu74 7y ago
I want to root for it but I think the LGPL license ruins it as long as there are BSD or MIT licenses alternatives that are good enough. Firefox might implement it but I think there’s zero change that Chromium or Safari add support.
- CobrastanJorji 7y agoThey could conceivably buy a different license from the author, if the author were to be interested in that, and if the author's the only contributor and didn't derive their code from othe LGPL code, etc, etc.
- MonadIsPronad 7y agoThere's also an Apache 2 licenced decoder mentioned, perhaps with exactly this in mind...
- not2b 7y agoOnly the encoder is LGPL, the decoder is Apache, web browsers only need a decoder.
- nine_k 7y agoI think that LGPL for the encoder is exactly the right choice. A format's strength is in uniform support; taking a MIT-licenced encoder and making an improved incompatible format won't be great for end users.
- DagAgren 7y agoIs it better that no tools will actually be able to export the format? Also, a GPL-licensed encoder will in no way stop incompatible extensions.
- theon144 7y agoUh, LGPL explicitly doesn't prevent even proprietary software from using the encoder?
- DagAgren 7y agoNot explicitly, but in practice, it does. It is often not viable to jump through the hoops required to do it. That is, if your lawyers will even let you try.
- dspillett 7y ago> It is often not viable to jump through the hoops required to do it. Having it as a dynamic library isn't that problematic a hoop is it? >That is, if your lawyers will even let you try. This may be a genuine issue. Many have a strict "nothing related to GPL" policy driven at least partly by misunderstanding or paranoia.
- DagAgren 7y agoHaving it as a dynamic library is not enough. It has to be a dynamic library tgat you can replace. This doesn’t work when, for instance, distributing through many app stores.
- nine_k 7y agoProprietary software can include the encoder. This is fine. But any changes to the encoder itself remain under LGPL and get published. This is the point.