[Libwebsockets] libwebsocket releases

Andy Green andy at warmcat.com
Thu Apr 16 14:30:17 CEST 2015



On 16 April 2015 20:10:13 GMT+08:00, Jaco <jaco at uls.co.za> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I'm trying to package up libwebsockets for the Gentoo distribution.
>
>For this purpose I'd like to inquire whether offiicial releases are
>archived somewhere?  I've been looking through the information on
>libwebsockets.org but am unfortunately unable to locate any location
>from which downloads are available.
>
>For the purpose of packaging I've now proceeded to archive at least
>version 1.4 to http://downloads.uls.co.za/libwebsockets/ but feel that
>this is a bit informal, and would like to request that the project
>makes
>space somewhere to archive releases.

You should get reference tarballs direct from the git tags.

The official git is here

http://git.libwebsockets.org/cgi-bin/cgit/libwebsockets/

It is also mirrored push by push (and tag by tag...) here

https://github.com/warmcat/libwebsockets

The (now signed) tag tarballs are right there on the first page of the official git, eg

http://git.libwebsockets.org/cgi-bin/cgit/libwebsockets/snapshot/libwebsockets-1.4-chrome43-firefox-36.tar.gz

>The other concern that exists is the license, from what I can tel
>basically you're reducing LGPL-2.1 to allow for linking against it, as
>long as you don't modify the library, but if you do make the diffs

No you're encouraged to modify the library.  But if you do so, you must do so under LGPL rules for the *library* part.  The static linking exception is saying that we do not have, and will never have, any interest in extending LGPL rules to the sources for the other pieces of the static linked executable, which is otherwise an LGPL "viral" concern for users in that situation.  But for the lws part, we insist on lws sources (modified or not) made available along with distribution of the composed binary, according to LGPL rules.

>available, and then there is the attribution (BSD like).  Personally I
>have no objection against the license, but it does complicate official
>inclusion since it's not a mainline license (like LGPL itself or BSD). 
>Would the libsockets team have any objection against formalizing the
>license or against me pitching to include the license as an option in
>Gentoo?  xiamiao has suggested that both the BSD license (or one of
>it's
>variants) or the MIT license might already do exactly what you're
>trying
>to achieve with your ammendments.

The license choice is not random, and BSD / MIT is not the same as LGPL-2.1 plus static linking exception.  We get many contributions thanks to the generosity of the users and the LGPL license, and we already do enough to support iOS type leeching by providing the static link exception.

Fedora and Debian have no problem with our "LGPL2.1 plus the additional grant for static linking exception" license.

-Andy

>Kind Regards,
>Jaco
>_______________________________________________
>Libwebsockets mailing list
>Libwebsockets at ml.libwebsockets.org
>http://ml.libwebsockets.org/mailman/listinfo/libwebsockets




More information about the Libwebsockets mailing list