Change license to a more permissive one #410
Comments
|
I agree |
2 similar comments
|
I agree |
|
I agree |
|
I agree |
1 similar comment
|
I agree |
|
I agree
…On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 9:13 AM Markus Vieth ***@***.***> wrote:
I agree
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#410 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAO7J4RFHKZ7UQIN7BWTZ73V4BJQNANCNFSM6AAAAAAQCAAQ6Y>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
I agree |
2 similar comments
|
I agree |
|
I agree |
|
@ahoarau I am reading into the licenses. I don't see why the LGPL-V2 prevents any larger work (open or closed) to link against this library. My objection to change to MIT or Apache 2.0 license is that it allows for closed source modifications of this library. This library is open source and I think any modified version should be kept open. |
|
@MatthijsBurgh LGPL-v2 prevents from static linking - at least makes it extremely difficult. "you must provide a way to relink against the library". Many useful libraries like this one have permissive licenses, and still get contributions from people. That being said, as a contributor and maintainer, the choice is up to you of course ! I was just lead to believe that you agreed on that in the last issue. |
|
I agree.
…On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, 10:02 mvistein ***@***.***> wrote:
I agree
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#410 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFP5F5XNW65FY6MNIPKXXTV4BPINANCNFSM6AAAAAAQCAAQ6Y>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
I am sorry I gave you the impression I did. I just wanted to know the opinion of Smits first. I will come back to you about whether I agree or not. |
|
I agree |
|
* Antoine Hoarau ***@***.***> [2022-09-01 01:50]:
***@***.*** LGPL-v2 prevents from static linking - at least makes it extremely difficult. "you must provide a way to relink against the library".
Moreover, modifications that are need in some cases when integrating the lib could be difficult to put public for private companies. That could include more minor modifications as simple as building with different flags, fixing some warnings.. all of those are not necessarily useful for the bigger audience + again difficult to put public.
FWIW: I I don't see the problem with companies providing the source code
of those minor modifications. It does not mean that upstream has to
integrate them. Even more, I think the (L)GPL is especially for cases
like this that useful changes are contributed back.
Many useful libraries like this one have permissive licenses, and still get contributions from people.
To me the question is not if there are contributions but rather if those
how use it successfully contribute back.
Having said that, my contributions here where rather minor so I'm fine
with whatever is agreed on.
|
|
I agree |
|
I agree
… On Aug 31, 2022, at 22:47, Antoine Hoarau ***@***.***> wrote:
Hello KDL contributors,
This follow the discussion that happened here: #405 <#405>
As discussed with @smits <https://github.com/smits> and @MatthijsBurgh <https://github.com/MatthijsBurgh>, they are both ok to change the license to a more permissive one. MIT seems to be the most appropriate (apache-2.0 was considered at first).
To make the change, we need the consent of every contributors to make the change from LGPL-v2 to MIT.
This will ease proprietary code development, allowing some modifications and static linking.
You can simply respond with "I agree".
Thanks !
|
|
I agree |
|
I agree |
5 similar comments
|
I agree |
|
I agree |
|
I agree |
|
I agree |
|
I agree |
|
I agree! |
|
I agree. |
|
I agree |
|
@MatthijsBurgh any news on this ? |
|
@ahoarau I am sorry, but I can not agree with a change to MIT or apache 2.0. As statically linking is your biggest issue, I suggest the Mozilla Public License. I would agree with a change to that one. It still requires the user to disclose the source code, when distributing, but it doesn't require compatibility to the original version of the library, So it allows for static linking. |
|
@MatthijsBurgh thanks for your feedback. I understand your point of view. I'm ok with this compromise as well. Probably a simple "patch" on the LGPL could be enough. Something like "LGPL + authorize static linking exception". That might simplify this (long) process. What do you think ? |
|
Yes, such a simple patch would also be an option. The question is how we do this correctly? |
https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0-linking-exception.html Some like this would be enough I believe. Added to the repo. |
|
I agree. |
|
I agree |
1 similar comment
|
I agree |
|
@ahoarau you still want to migrate to lgpl 3.0 with the linking exception? As mentioned before, I agree with it. |
Absolutely. Linking exception, MIT or BSD. Everything that makes life easier, I believe everyone is up for it. Can you do the commit to upload the linking exception ? |
|
@ahoarau I can do the commit, can you do the bookkeeping, whether everyone agrees? The list above is not complete yet. |
Thanks. I believe some accounts are not used anymore, so it's gonna be difficult to keep track of everyone outside Github, but let's give it a last try: Please note that linking exception won't affect fundamentally the meaning of the license, it's a simple made-for-people-building-code extension. |
ahoarau
changed the title
|
I agree |
|
Ok for me!
Sent from Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Dominick Vanthienen ***@***.***>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 9:51:01 PM
To: orocos/orocos_kinematics_dynamics ***@***.***>
Cc: Gianni Borghesan ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [orocos/orocos_kinematics_dynamics] Change license to a more permissive one (Issue #410)
FWDed to alternative email addresses of
@tdelaet @francisco-miguel-almeida @gborghesan in BCC
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 7:42 PM Antoine Hoarau ***@***.***> wrote:
@ahoarau <https://github.com/ahoarau> I can do the commit, can you do the
bookkeeping, whether everyone agrees? The list above is not complete yet.
Thanks. I believe some accounts are not used anymore, so it's gonna be
difficult to keep track of everyone outside Github, but let's give it a
last try:
@DjoleMNE <https://github.com/DjoleMNE> @tdelaet
<https://github.com/tdelaet> @francisco-miguel-almeida
<https://github.com/francisco-miguel-almeida> @morxa
<https://github.com/morxa> @aballier <https://github.com/aballier>
@jbohren-hbr <https://github.com/jbohren-hbr> @martiniil
<https://github.com/martiniil> @spencerjackson
<https://github.com/spencerjackson> @rethink-kmaroney
<https://github.com/rethink-kmaroney> @mcopejans
<https://github.com/mcopejans> @gborghesan <https://github.com/gborghesan>
@seanyen <https://github.com/seanyen>
Please note that linking exception won't affect fundamentally the meaning
of the license, it's a simple made-for-people-building-code extension.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#410 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAO7J4XQF224SDK6I5CB2HDYV53B5AVCNFSM6AAAAAAQCAAQ62VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNRZGYYTCNRVHE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#410 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABLPVKXLEUJKQOZMMSLXXDTYV6KDLAVCNFSM6AAAAAAQCAAQ62VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNRZHA4TMMBTGY>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
[ { ***@***.***": "http://schema.org", ***@***.***": "EmailMessage", "potentialAction": { ***@***.***": "ViewAction", "target": "#410 (comment)", "url": "#410 (comment)", "name": "View Issue" }, "description": "View this Issue on GitHub", "publisher": { ***@***.***": "Organization", "name": "GitHub", "url": "https://github.com" } } ]
|
and others
Hello KDL contributors,
This follow the discussion that happened here: #405
As discussed with @smits and @MatthijsBurgh, they are both ok to change the license to a more permissive one.
MITseems to be the most appropriate (apache-2.0 was considered at first).To make the change, we need the consent of every contributors to make the change from LGPL-v2 to
MIT.This will ease proprietary code development, allowing some modifications and static linking.
You can simply respond with "I agree".
Thanks !
NOTE: as a contributor myself, I agree !
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: