4 ms·
This was indeed what I was thinking in the first place, when I made VkFFT - your project doesn't have to be open-source, but please share your modifications to
by DTolm 6y ago
This was indeed what I was thinking in the first place, when I made VkFFT - your project doesn't have to be open-source, but please share your modifications to VkFFT. I think about switching it to MPL 2.0, is this one better for everybody?
- ncmncm 6y agoYour code, your license. Nobody else has earned a say. Ask anybody who actually contributes, usefully, what they think. Their opinion might mean something.
- Reelin 6y agoYes, I believe the MPL fits the usecase you describe. As far as I understand it, proprietary code using an LGPL licensed library is more or less incompatible with templates in header files (!!!) since there's no way (AFAIK?) to relink against a modified version without providing your full source code. Supposedly the LGPLv3 provides an exception for header files but personally I wouldn't go anywhere near it because it seems quite vague - "small" macros, templates that are less than 10 lines (what constitutes a line?) etc. So as currently licensed (LGPL), I don't think your library is usable as part of a proprietary project. The MPL, in contrast, places no relinking requirements on the developer. You only have to share any changes you happen to make to the MPL licensed code.