4 ms·

graph-tool is LGPL, which means it can be used as a library even in proprietary code. So I don't know how it could not be allowed for your users. The python AP

graph-tool is LGPL, which means it can be used as a library even in proprietary code. So I don't know how it could not be allowed for your users. The python API is almost identical to 'EasyGraph'. I'm curious why you consider it less approachable. graph-tool visualization is killer. Not an after-thought to check a box. You can do animations, visualize interactively (move node positions with the mouse), generate publication-quality SVG/PNG/PDF seamlessly, integrate with other applications using GTK, cairo, etc. It has been around since 2006, and is maintained by an academic group.

lmeyerov 3y ago
We see many non-academic users (startups, enterprises, gov, ...) where it is common to only allow licenses like Apache, MIT, & BSD for libraries, so LGPL often makes sw not even a contender Like I said, I'm a fan and refer folks to it when fits. Other libraries focus on strengths like licensing, viz, perf, AI, ease, etc that graph-tool doesn't invest as much in. Ex: competing with Nvidia on GPU computing is doable, but takes a special kind of focus - it's not an accident we have been working with them for years. Graph-tool is strong in general, just not everything to everyone.
- eoverride 3y ago
  It seems entirely nonsensical not to allow LGPL for library code, since it does not add any restrictions compared to BSD/MIT/etc. You should advise your users better in this regard, since they seem to not understand how these licenses work.
  - lmeyerov 3y ago
    LGPL is understood to incur stipulations in scenarios like static linking, which for a dev library, can be a concern. These concerns are not in MIT/BSD/Apache, which is why professional organizations often have rules allowing only the latter. It takes undesirable work by developers to go against their organizational guidelines. My job isn't to advise users on legal matters nor promote graph-tool, though I do try to increase awareness of options in general as a neutral technical party. The graph-tool's community's decision to use & stick to a relatively unpopular license (outside of academia), and the ensuing issues around legal, practical, and perception... are problems for the graph-tool community to address, not me. We OSS our work as MIT/BSD/Apache because that's what our users accept and pay us to do. That's all that's in our control.
    - eoverride 3y ago
      Python libraries cannot be statically linked. This has nothing to do with promoting graph-tool, but not promoting disinformation, as you have been doing. This is shameful FUD against LGPL based on blatant nonsense. If organizations have rules that don't make sense, the problem is with those rules. Spreading this kind of misleading narrative is damaging to the community as a whole. Lost a lot of respect for Graphistry during this interchange.
      - lmeyerov 3y ago
        I'm confused. There was a surprise that LGPL was not seen as equiv as MIT/BSD/Apache by orgs, so I clarified with the typical example of why organizations may have default-deny rules for LGPL libraries bc the static linking restrictions, and that those default-deny rules would require devs in these orgs to get an exception. You made me curious, and this thread was enlightening to me: https://www.quora.com/Can-I-use-LGPL-in-commercial-software https://www.quora.com/Can-I-use-LGPL-in-commercial-software . Note the political & bureaucratic work that'd be involved to get a licensing exception, and then the extra SW infra work to do the above. Again, I try to keep our team technical & neutral about graph DB/lib/etc providers. We get used with a variety of tools, and I personally end up seeing areas where each invests more than others + try to keep discussions to the resulting kind of objective distinction. So I'm genuinely curious what's wrong in my summary, both wrt legal theory and what organizations do in practice. I get frustrated when projects we get pulled into (digital crime, outages, genomics, ...) get hamstrung by something like OSS licensing.

lmeyerov 3y ago

We see many non-academic users (startups, enterprises, gov, ...) where it is common to only allow licenses like Apache, MIT, & BSD for libraries, so LGPL often makes sw not even a contender Like I said, I'm a fan and refer folks to it when fits. Other libraries focus on strengths like licensing, viz, perf, AI, ease, etc that graph-tool doesn't invest as much in. Ex: competing with Nvidia on GPU computing is doable, but takes a special kind of focus - it's not an accident we have been working with them for years. Graph-tool is strong in general, just not everything to everyone.

eoverride 3y ago
It seems entirely nonsensical not to allow LGPL for library code, since it does not add any restrictions compared to BSD/MIT/etc. You should advise your users better in this regard, since they seem to not understand how these licenses work.
- lmeyerov 3y ago
  LGPL is understood to incur stipulations in scenarios like static linking, which for a dev library, can be a concern. These concerns are not in MIT/BSD/Apache, which is why professional organizations often have rules allowing only the latter. It takes undesirable work by developers to go against their organizational guidelines. My job isn't to advise users on legal matters nor promote graph-tool, though I do try to increase awareness of options in general as a neutral technical party. The graph-tool's community's decision to use & stick to a relatively unpopular license (outside of academia), and the ensuing issues around legal, practical, and perception... are problems for the graph-tool community to address, not me. We OSS our work as MIT/BSD/Apache because that's what our users accept and pay us to do. That's all that's in our control.
  - eoverride 3y ago
    Python libraries cannot be statically linked. This has nothing to do with promoting graph-tool, but not promoting disinformation, as you have been doing. This is shameful FUD against LGPL based on blatant nonsense. If organizations have rules that don't make sense, the problem is with those rules. Spreading this kind of misleading narrative is damaging to the community as a whole. Lost a lot of respect for Graphistry during this interchange.
    - lmeyerov 3y ago
      I'm confused. There was a surprise that LGPL was not seen as equiv as MIT/BSD/Apache by orgs, so I clarified with the typical example of why organizations may have default-deny rules for LGPL libraries bc the static linking restrictions, and that those default-deny rules would require devs in these orgs to get an exception. You made me curious, and this thread was enlightening to me: https://www.quora.com/Can-I-use-LGPL-in-commercial-software https://www.quora.com/Can-I-use-LGPL-in-commercial-software . Note the political & bureaucratic work that'd be involved to get a licensing exception, and then the extra SW infra work to do the above. Again, I try to keep our team technical & neutral about graph DB/lib/etc providers. We get used with a variety of tools, and I personally end up seeing areas where each invests more than others + try to keep discussions to the resulting kind of objective distinction. So I'm genuinely curious what's wrong in my summary, both wrt legal theory and what organizations do in practice. I get frustrated when projects we get pulled into (digital crime, outages, genomics, ...) get hamstrung by something like OSS licensing.