[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: MPL2 instead of LGPL
From:       Ivan =?utf-8?B?xIx1a2nEhw==?= <ivan.cukic () kde ! org>
Date:       2020-08-17 15:47:14
Message-ID: 6086049.jE0xQCEvom () drako
[Download RAW message or body]

> > I've read now multiple times about projects replacing their use of
> > LGPLv3 [1] with MPL2 [2]. I would be interested in what people in the
> > KDE community think about that.

Maybe an alternative to MPL could be these:
1) GPL with runtime exception (if GCC's standard library can use it, I guess 
we can as well) https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html
2) Boost license as it is also created for a set of template-heavy C++ 
libraries

> If one wants to write a modern C++ library that makes heavy use of
> templates in the API and which proprietary consumers should be able to
> use is this clause alone reason to prefer the MPL2 over the LGPL or is
> my concern unfounded?

Now, if you don't want to sue anyone, the "10 lines" thing is not a problem. 
:)

You can ask around people that have C++ libraries published under LGPL
if they had clients confused about the licensing. There is quote a lot of FUD 
about (L)GPL often created by companies with dual-licensing models (not gonna 
mention any names here) so I could see a company being afraid of using an LGPL 
library. But, on the other hand, if you clearly explain what LGPL means in the 
context of your library, I'd say LGPL will not be a problem.

Cheers,
Ivan



-- 
dr Ivan Čukić
ivan@cukic.co, https://cukic.co/
gpg key fingerprint: 8FE4 D32F 7061 EA9C 8232  07AE 01C6 CE2B FF04 1C12


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]