[Libwebsockets] If is it possible to change the licence from LGPL to BSD or MIT?

Andy Green andy at warmcat.com
Wed Feb 6 09:51:10 CET 2013


Hi -

Is that a problem with lgpl though or a problem with closed commercial game distribution?

MIT is certainly liberal but the result that people use the library without cooperation or giving back is non-liberal. From my pov lgpl is rational because in exchange for giving people the work, contribution back is encouraged that I also can benefit from. Merely hearing that xyz is using this work, charging for it, has added features they are not sharing, is not a satisfying result from my pov considering it is largely my work.  I think that should be a reasonable pov.

If people can find a way to do shared object linking there's no problem, that sounds pretty fair to me.  I am certainly not interested in trying to force liberaliztion of their stuff unrelated to lws.  Of course if there is a situation that's unfair we can chew it over.  But that's my basic position, giving back is a legitimate demand in exchange for free access to the work.

-Andy

Gregory Junker <ggjunker at gmail.com> wrote:

>The problem with LGPL usually comes up with commercial game
>distribution,
>often on consoles but more often now on handheld devices. It might be
>possible to distribute a game with shared objects, but usually games
>prefer
>to be statically-linked to limit hacking opportunities. Ogre3D, as an
>example, used to be LGPL until users expressed interest in using it in
>console games and other statically-linked applications, and the project
>founder changed it a couple of releases ago to MIT.
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:30 PM, "Andy Green (林安廸)"
><andy at warmcat.com>wrote:
>
>> On 06/02/13 01:30, the mail apparently from Peter Young(杨世玲)
>included:
>>
>>  Hello Andy,
>>>
>>>         I'm working on integrate libwebsockets to cocos2d-x.
>>>
>>>         Cocos2d-x is a cross-platform game engine, can write game
>for
>>> ios, android, blackberry, etc.   The are many popular games based on
>>> cocos2d-x. official site: http://cocos2d-x.org
>>>
>>>         cocos2d-x is under MIT license. so, there will be a license
>issue
>>> if a game using libwebsockets and the  developer wants to keep there
>codes
>>> close source.
>>>
>>>         If is it possible to change the licence from LGPL to BSD or
>MIT?
>>>
>>
>> I think LGPL is pretty liberal, and the git history shows a good
>level of
>> contribution coming back.
>>
>> Originally and without much thought, libwebsockets was actually GPL2,
>> simply because I do Linux kernel work and that was my default.
>>
>> However it was pointed out that's not really a fair choice for
>libraries,
>> and it's true I don't want to force people to license the rest of
>their
>> stuff liberally if they don't want to.  So I changed it a long while
>back
>> to LGPL.
>>
>> Can you explain what the license problem is with cocos2d-x? 
>Presumably if
>> it's dynamically linked, there should be no problem including LGPL
>sources
>> in a project that is otherwise MIT.  If it's statically linked, that
>can be
>> a problem.
>>
>> If you consider a distro like Fedora or whatever, it's made up of all
>> kinds of licensed sources you can freely download the same although
>> redistribution rules differ part by part.  In itself, so long as it's
>> clearly stated, it doesn't make trouble AFAIK.
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Libwebsockets mailing list
>> Libwebsockets at ml.**libwebsockets.org
><Libwebsockets at ml.libwebsockets.org>
>>
>http://ml.libwebsockets.org/**mailman/listinfo/libwebsockets<http://ml.libwebsockets.org/mailman/listinfo/libwebsockets>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://libwebsockets.org/pipermail/libwebsockets/attachments/20130206/38308bde/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Libwebsockets mailing list