4 ms·

My favourite licence has always been the MPLv2. It's basically the best of both worlds, it's copyleft for your code while keeping the ability to statically link

My favourite licence has always been the MPLv2. It's basically the best of both worlds, it's copyleft for your code while keeping the ability to statically link (crucial for Rust, Go and other languages that do that by default).

Sander_Marechal 1y ago
So, LGPL?
- qalmakka 1y ago
  Well, no, as someone else already stated forcing people to ship object files is a PITA and it's really not feasible with languages that do codegen, templates, ... because you inevitably end up injecting copylefted code inside of your files. I like copyleft as a way to protect my code from freeloaders, but I don't think that imposing the same view on other people is fair TBH. I want people to be able to use my code without being forced to "convert" to my creed first
  - jenadine 1y ago
    You can obfuscate your code.
    - qalmakka 1y ago
      what for? I'd rather just use the MPL2 instead
      - jenadine 1y ago
        So you can use someone elses rust (or other languages with templates, that really need to be re-compiled) LGPL library, without publishing your proprietary code.
wolvesechoes 1y ago
You can link LGPL statically as well, though it puts more obligations (shipping object files) than MPL. I am always amazed how many myths were created around FOSS licensing.
- CJefferson 1y ago
  That doesn't work for languages which require all the code at once just for compiling, like C++ (if any of the code involves templates), template Haskell, or Rust (at least, not without heroic efforts). You could make sure the LGPL code only works through a C-API like interface, then you can sub-divide it off more easily, but that can be quite a bit of work.
- qalmakka 1y ago
  Try doing that in Rust, C++ or Go. It's not only incredibly annoying, it's also often technically unfeasible due to macros/codegen/templates/generics, so you end up with ugly stuff like linking exceptions clauses and stuff that - guess what? often boil down to a worst version of the MPLv2

Sander_Marechal 1y ago

So, LGPL?

qalmakka 1y ago
Well, no, as someone else already stated forcing people to ship object files is a PITA and it's really not feasible with languages that do codegen, templates, ... because you inevitably end up injecting copylefted code inside of your files. I like copyleft as a way to protect my code from freeloaders, but I don't think that imposing the same view on other people is fair TBH. I want people to be able to use my code without being forced to "convert" to my creed first
- jenadine 1y ago
  You can obfuscate your code.
  - qalmakka 1y ago
    what for? I'd rather just use the MPL2 instead
    - jenadine 1y ago
      So you can use someone elses rust (or other languages with templates, that really need to be re-compiled) LGPL library, without publishing your proprietary code.

wolvesechoes 1y ago

You can link LGPL statically as well, though it puts more obligations (shipping object files) than MPL. I am always amazed how many myths were created around FOSS licensing.

CJefferson 1y ago
That doesn't work for languages which require all the code at once just for compiling, like C++ (if any of the code involves templates), template Haskell, or Rust (at least, not without heroic efforts). You could make sure the LGPL code only works through a C-API like interface, then you can sub-divide it off more easily, but that can be quite a bit of work.
qalmakka 1y ago
Try doing that in Rust, C++ or Go. It's not only incredibly annoying, it's also often technically unfeasible due to macros/codegen/templates/generics, so you end up with ugly stuff like linking exceptions clauses and stuff that - guess what? often boil down to a worst version of the MPLv2