undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCCs12y ago0 comments

1. It is limiting: no static linking or you have to distribute re-linkable object files (LGPL section 4.d.)

2. It is long and complex license, not yet tested in court. Sometimes what constitutes a "derivative work" is not that clear.

3. Section 6 says all these can be changed anytime, potentially making it more restrictive (see GPL v3).

So from the business viewpoint it is better to find an alternative now than to potentially lose all the investment later.

0 comments

nitrogen12y ago

1. It is limiting: no static linking or you have to distribute re-linkable object files (LGPL section 4.d.)

Static linking is fairly uncommon; it's more common to distribute the versions of DLLs you require on Windows, or use a package dependency on specific versions (or provide your own copies) of the system-provided libraries on Linux.

3. Section 6 says all these can be changed anytime, potentially making it more restrictive (see GPL v3).

Section 6 of LGPL3 does not say that; it says that you have the option of choosing a later version. Any code released under "GPLv2 or later" can still be used under GPL2.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

thezoid12y ago

The LGPL doesn't apply to network distributed software. Working with this software via an API (i.e. HTML) doesn't mean you need to do anything.

These kinds of licenses are put in place so people can't create proprietary extensions/patches and fracture a community. Now, I'm not saying this is better than MIT, but at least deters people from that.

1. will only matter if you are distributing binaries to clients/customers, which generally isn't the case with a SaaS product.

CCsOP12y ago

It does limit your future options.

GitHub started out as SaaS and now offers Enterprise product https://enterprise.github.com/

nitrogen12y ago

CppCMS also offers commercial licensing. Don't get me wrong, I love BSD and MIT software, and release some of my own code under permissive licenses, but it really bothers me when someone complains about the GPL or LGPL because they want to free-load off of others' hard work. The LGPL is a very commercial-friendly license!

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsCCs12y ago0 comments

1. It is limiting: no static linking or you have to distribute re-linkable object files (LGPL section 4.d.)

2. It is long and complex license, not yet tested in court. Sometimes what constitutes a "derivative work" is not that clear.

3. Section 6 says all these can be changed anytime, potentially making it more restrictive (see GPL v3).

So from the business viewpoint it is better to find an alternative now than to potentially lose all the investment later.

0 comments

nitrogen12y ago

1. It is limiting: no static linking or you have to distribute re-linkable object files (LGPL section 4.d.)

3. Section 6 says all these can be changed anytime, potentially making it more restrictive (see GPL v3).

Section 6 of LGPL3 does not say that; it says that you have the option of choosing a later version. Any code released under "GPLv2 or later" can still be used under GPL2.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

thezoid12y ago

The LGPL doesn't apply to network distributed software. Working with this software via an API (i.e. HTML) doesn't mean you need to do anything.

1. will only matter if you are distributing binaries to clients/customers, which generally isn't the case with a SaaS product.

CCsOP12y ago

It does limit your future options.

GitHub started out as SaaS and now offers Enterprise product https://enterprise.github.com/

nitrogen12y ago

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse