lwan
lwan copied to clipboard
lpereira
License issues
I hate to bring this topic up, but I feel like lwan is rather heavily restricted as potentially embedded webserver library.
Instead of GPL, why not LGPL (with an exception to permit static linking), similar to ZeroMQ (see http://zeromq.org/area:licensing)? It would seem more fitting for library-style software.
I've considered changing it to LGPL, yes -- it's GPL at this moment as it wasn't meant to be a library but rather a standalone program. I might change if there's demand for it.
Glad to know you're open for changes. If you could, would you consider adding an exception for static linking as well?
That way people can avoid the mess of Qt, where you have to redistribute Qt*4.dll as well (no hate, I love Qt, but it's very silly).
One more :+1: for the LGPL. A weak copyleft license would be nice if you wanted to, e.g., distribute a Tcl extension that was a wrapper for lwan.
As I got special permission from my employer to work on this project during my free time, changing the license isn't just the matter of using a sed script; I need to go through the process again. It's not that bureaucratic, but I'd like to avoid this kind of thing as much as possible.
if this issue is still open i recommend looking at this link: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility i dont have any legal background at all but it seems to me that the project licensed as GPLv2 or later can be used by or use other licenses without any restrictions unless in LGPLv3: "OK: Combination is under GPLv3" both as library and as copying code, this should be marked as closed for now
@Hempels-ravens The reason people are asking for a different license here is because they want to use lawn with non-GPL open source code (e.g., code that is MIT or BSD-licensed) and proprietary code, not GPLv3.
"it's GPL at this moment as it wasn't meant to be a library but rather a standalone program."(in above comment) is reason i thought that GPLv2 or more is better as it adheres to this line but "Lwan isn't just a simple static file server: it can be used as a library to build web services on."(from lwan.ws) conflicts with GPLv2 or more if closed source code to be allowed i recommend LGPL but it depends on future usage of lwan or i'm just raising a non-productive discussion, although i recommend LPGL but for now only sd-daemon is using LGPL in program so much freedom is allowed according to table. i.e: if library LGPL will be very nice, if not GPL will be enough i think, then again i dont know much
+1 for LGPL
It looks to be a great tool, and I'd love to be able to use it as a library.
Asking for MIT is bit unreasonable given his last comment, don't you think?
AFAIK, MIT is required to allow running other MIT applications and is still compatible with more restrictive ones like GPLv3 and others. I'm running a Lua web framework that used to be GLPv3, then moved to AGPL but my plan is to make it MIT because of this same reason.
The reason Lwan started out was to understand how a proprietary web server worked. Allowing it to turn it into proprietary code would be completely against the very same principle that made me write it. So there's no chance of it ever being relicensed under anything that's not a copyleft license such as LGPL.
@lpereira, there is no freedom if there just one choice. Even if Lwan is OpenSource, you are making it non-free, because people like me, that need to run a Free Software project on your app server, must release under the same license as your project, that is unlikely to happen. We know you worked hard for years to build an awesome project, the same way other people are working to build great projects under other licenses. One should let people have freedom to decide if they go proprietary or not, otherwise you are just killing your own creation and breaking the innovation cycle. Just my 2c.
@develCuy
One should let people have freedom to decide if they go proprietary or not, otherwise you are just killing your own creation and breaking the innovation cycle. Just my 2c.
Consider @lpereira's previous statement, that lwan started out as a standalone program, rather than a library. In that sense, the current license does make sense, but of course, for libraries, the GPL is too restrictive. I agree with in that case. But please, let's not turn this into a slapfight. As it stands now, a down- (or rather, up-?)grade to LGPL would definitely make lwan more accessible to a lot more developers, which is precisely the reason I opened this issue in the first place.
+1 for LGPL, as I want to use it as a library in the Silicon web framework. Now I am using another backend in Silicon, only because of the License of LWAN.
@mariopal Unless you're distributing the binary, there's no need to supply the source code of your application if all your users do is interact with it through HTTP. It's only when they have access to the binary that they must have access to the source code (in fact, not even I -- or anyone else -- need to have access to the source code, unless I also acquire the binary through legal means). That's the reason there's the Affero GPL variant, where the freedom to study and modify the source code extends to server software as well, even if users are only communicating with it through a standard protocol.
Anyway. I appreciate all the comments; I feel like there's no need for new comments on this issue, so I'm locking it for the time being. In addition to that, here's what going to happen:
- I plan to change the license to LGPL, with exception to allow static linking
- All contributors will be notified of the intention to change the license
- If they object the change, I'll have to rewrite their code; this might be a challenge as I'm "tainted"
- I'll go through the bureaucracy with my employer so that they know the license of this project will change
- Having no issues with my employer, I'll go ahead and push a commit changing all files
- I'll notify everyone in this thread that has voted for LGPL
Note that there's no ETA. Might be tomorrow, might be next year.
As for the suggestion for copyfree as oposed to copyleft licenses: that's not happening.