nim-syslog
nim-syslog copied to clipboard
FedericoCeratto
License
Can I kindly ask you to change the license to something less restrictive? Dual MIT/Apache2 would be great. Example: https://github.com/status-im/nim-chronicles Thanks!
@yglukhov I'm wiling to consider it. Can you please explain what restriction impacts your use case and how?
I might be wrong, but from what I know, LGPL is generally a copyleft (viral) license with some exceptions for dynamic linking, which (a) is incompatible with platforms that do not support dynamic linking (e.g. former iOS), and (b) makes little sense in Nim context as Nim libraries are normally compiled into the binary (more of a static linking). One of LGPL requirements is that the derivative has to distribute LGPL library source code along with itself, and I as an author of MIT/BSD/etc library would not want to make my users do so, thus I will avoid using LGPL dependencies.
Few clarifications: The requirement exists to allow end-users and other developers to be able to modify the library. This can be allowed either by making the whole application Open Source, or using dynamic linking where possible, or providing access to the object files generated by the compiler. Regarding source distribution, it's not required to ship sources together with the binary, nor to ensure that users can obtain sources from the same server where they downloaded the binary from. It's accepted practice across many projects and distributions to have users identify and configure source repositories (e.g. git clone), as long as it is reasonably easy to do so and people are not denied access. Most likely, being able to "nimble build" a project fits the bill.
Anyhow, this is a small library; I'm happy to switch it to MIT license if this is still a problem.
I really don't have much to add to the issue. My personal take on that is that permissive license is always more beneficial to an open-source project. Because even slightest restrictions can scare away proprietary software, so you're getting zero chance of proprietary software vendor to contribute. While with permissive license, you increase the number of potential users, and as such, potential contributors/backers.
That being said, it's not overly critical. Like you said, this is a small library, so one can always come up with his own alternative. Likely it would require less typing than it took to discuss this issue ;)
@goldenreign @cloudify you both contributed to the project. Would you be OK with allowing a license change to MPL-2.0 or MIT?
It's fine with me! Happy Christmas!
On 25 Dec 2018, at 13:51, Federico Ceratto [email protected] wrote:
@goldenreign @cloudify you both contributed to the project. Would you be OK with allowing a license change to MPL-2.0 or MIT?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
