3 ms·

I notice that one of the differences is licensing. "The Toit compiler, the virtual machine, and all the supporting infrastructure is licensed under the LGPL-2.

I notice that one of the differences is licensing. "The Toit compiler, the virtual machine, and all the supporting infrastructure is licensed under the LGPL-2.1 license." Lua - MIT license eLua - MIT license OpenResty - BSD style licenses Could LGPL license limit it's growth and popularity?

deknos 5y ago
> Could LGPL license limit it's growth and popularity? No.
colejohnson66 5y ago
Maybe. Some developers have an aversion to the GPL family because of its “viral” nature. An MIT licensed project can be used in an LGPL one, but not the other way around. However, many projects are successful despite being GPL licensed. The Linux kernel is a major one, and Marlin FW (for 3D printers) has had its license used a few time to force Chinese 3D printer makers to release their source. There’s a lot of misconceptions and FUD about the GPL family. So, as a clarifier: The LGPL does not restrict what the user can do with a product;[a] it only limits other developer’s. If another program wants to integrate Toit (or any LGPL based thing) into their product, they need to abide by the LGPL’s linking and open source[b] provisions. But a user can use an LGPL or GPL licensed product without restriction. [a]: Despite what some developers may claim [b]: It’s more “source available” but for the users only. Open source is just one way to fulfill that requirement
- dleslie 5y ago
  Unless the entirety of the built binary is free of the LGPL, then I can tell you without hesitation that the answer is _definitely_.
- kapilvt 5y ago
  This captures the spirit of the gpl, while getting the actual terms of the LGPL wrong. All FSF licenses are about ensuring end user freedom, however in the context of the LGPL, it only restricts a developer if they are directly modifying the code of the library itself, in the case of toit that would be about modifications to the language itself. Footnotes would be more useful linking to actual information so here’s one [a] For reference gcc is GPLv3 but that doesn’t obviously apply to inputs/outputs of the program that same reference is in the context of a language like toit. [b] [a] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLv3ContributorVersion https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLv3Contribut... [b] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanIUseGPLTools...
R0b0t1 5y ago
> Could LGPL license limit it's growth and popularity? Not really. A lot of people license their code as BSD in the hope that some massive company picks it up and they either get famous or a fat consulting contract. In reality what we've seen e.g. Amazon do is just copy the idea for themselves and pay their internal engineers. GPL gives you more force, you can get money out of them to remove its restrictions.
kapilvt 5y ago
Short answer no, longer answer, LPGL is generally fine its a library license intended to enable usage, where only direct modifications to the underlying library need to be conveyed (triggered on distribution). Its not the same as GPL, AGPL where distribution are considered via aggregate work or access vectors respectively. IANAL, but I’ve spent plenty of time educating them ;-)

deknos 5y ago

> Could LGPL license limit it's growth and popularity? No.

colejohnson66 5y ago

Maybe. Some developers have an aversion to the GPL family because of its “viral” nature. An MIT licensed project can be used in an LGPL one, but not the other way around. However, many projects are successful despite being GPL licensed. The Linux kernel is a major one, and Marlin FW (for 3D printers) has had its license used a few time to force Chinese 3D printer makers to release their source. There’s a lot of misconceptions and FUD about the GPL family. So, as a clarifier: The LGPL does not restrict what the user can do with a product;[a] it only limits other developer’s. If another program wants to integrate Toit (or any LGPL based thing) into their product, they need to abide by the LGPL’s linking and open source[b] provisions. But a user can use an LGPL or GPL licensed product without restriction. [a]: Despite what some developers may claim [b]: It’s more “source available” but for the users only. Open source is just one way to fulfill that requirement

dleslie 5y ago
Unless the entirety of the built binary is free of the LGPL, then I can tell you without hesitation that the answer is _definitely_.
kapilvt 5y ago
This captures the spirit of the gpl, while getting the actual terms of the LGPL wrong. All FSF licenses are about ensuring end user freedom, however in the context of the LGPL, it only restricts a developer if they are directly modifying the code of the library itself, in the case of toit that would be about modifications to the language itself. Footnotes would be more useful linking to actual information so here’s one [a] For reference gcc is GPLv3 but that doesn’t obviously apply to inputs/outputs of the program that same reference is in the context of a language like toit. [b] [a] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLv3ContributorVersion https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLv3Contribut... [b] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanIUseGPLTools...

R0b0t1 5y ago

> Could LGPL license limit it's growth and popularity? Not really. A lot of people license their code as BSD in the hope that some massive company picks it up and they either get famous or a fat consulting contract. In reality what we've seen e.g. Amazon do is just copy the idea for themselves and pay their internal engineers. GPL gives you more force, you can get money out of them to remove its restrictions.

kapilvt 5y ago

Short answer no, longer answer, LPGL is generally fine its a library license intended to enable usage, where only direct modifications to the underlying library need to be conveyed (triggered on distribution). Its not the same as GPL, AGPL where distribution are considered via aggregate work or access vectors respectively. IANAL, but I’ve spent plenty of time educating them ;-)