[Libwebsockets] If is it possible to change the licence from LGPL to BSD or MIT?
aqiruse at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 18:19:55 CET 2013
A little while back, i saw a project that stated it was dual licensed under
LGPL and BSD/MIT. Not quite sure how that works, but it might be something
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:44 AM, "Andy Green (林安廸)" <andy at warmcat.com> wrote:
> On 06/02/13 21:56, the mail apparently from Peter Young(杨世玲) included:
>> Hello Andy,
>> sorry for didn't explain the issue clearly.
>> In iOS, only statically linked is allowed.
>> so, if someone want use libwebsockets in iOS game, means the
>> game will be LGPL too, and the source should be public. obviously, in most
>> case this is not an option.
>> In this case, can you re-consider this issue?
>> libwebsockets is a great lib, thanks for your great effort.
> Well, that's a different issue than needing to change the license to "BSD
> or MIT".
> Actually this has come up before, someone else had a similar issue a
> couple of years ago and I found there's a "static linking exception"
> possible as a bolt-on for LGPL. I wrote them that they could consider it
> under that exception IIRC. I don't think we will lose much by generally
> adding the exception, unless there are objections.
> That leaves intact the LGPL requirement to give sources / modifications
> for the library part of the binary you're distributing, which I think is
> very important to keep the project healthy.
> But it directly solves the static link issue.
> I'll research the options for wording and such tomorrow and look at adding
> an explicit LICENSE file to make whatever we do clear, constructive
> comments welcome.
> ------------------ Original ------------------
>> From: ""Andy Green (林安廸)""<andy at warmcat.com>;
>> Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 04:51 PM
>> To: "Gregory Junker"<ggjunker at gmail.com>;
>> Cc: "Peter Young(杨世玲)"<young40 at qq.com>; "libwebsockets"<libwebsockets@**
>> ml.libwebsockets.org <libwebsockets at ml.libwebsockets.org>>;
>> Subject: Re: [Libwebsockets] If is it possible to change the licence
>> from LGPL to BSD or MIT?
>> 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.
>> 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>
>> 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.
>> Libwebsockets mailing list
>> Libwebsockets at ml.**libwebsockets.org <Libwebsockets at ml.libwebsockets.org>
> Libwebsockets mailing list
> Libwebsockets at ml.**libwebsockets.org <Libwebsockets at ml.libwebsockets.org>
--A programmer started to cuss
--Because getting to sleep was a fuss
--As he lay there in bed
--Looping 'round in his head
--was: while( !asleep() ) sheep++;
--Nothing is impossible! It is merely a matter of figuring out How?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libwebsockets