5 ms·
I agree with you. When you fork a project, there better be a good reason. And when there is a good reason, there's no reason to be vague in the explanation. (an
by raphinou 15y ago
I agree with you. When you fork a project, there better be a good reason. And when there is a good reason, there's no reason to be vague in the explanation. (and I can't think of a vaguer explanation than what they write)
Giving an example of a problem solved by the fork would help, though I'm not sure a solid example of a goal not possible within 0mq can be found based on the project goals.
- rch 15y agoLooks like a move from GPL to LGPL. I had assumed that zmq was BSD licensed to begin with - so I've learned something.
- necubi 15y agoThat can't be it, as 0mq is also LGPL. From the footer of zeromq.org: ØMQ is free software licensed under the LGPL And in every source file: 0MQ is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. As I have some investment in the 0mq ecosystem, it would be nice to know what this means in the long run for that project.
- densh 15y agoAccording to [1] ZeroMQ is licensed under LGPL with static linking exception. [1] http://www.zeromq.org/area:licensing http://www.zeromq.org/area:licensing
- ori_b 15y agoYou can't do that without the consent of every contributor. At least not legally.
- dmarble 15y agoNot exactly. The zmq library is already LGPL. It's the plugins and examples that are GPL. That might be a potential reason crossroads I/O was created -- to start an ecosystem of plugins that are LGPL too. source: http://www.zeromq.org/area:licensing http://www.zeromq.org/area:licensing