[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

From: Rob Landley
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:53:08 -0500

On 04/30/2013 12:35:30 PM, Jared Maddox wrote:
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:03:43 +0200
> From: Daniel Gl?ckner <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote:
>> So the questions is:  Do you people want, is it possible, what
>> would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL
>> to a BSD-like one (such as below).
>> Please discuss.
> I don't see anything good coming from a change from LGPL to BSD.
> It just encourages people to create private forks for binary-only
> releases.
> And I have yet to hear anyone complain on this list that they can't
> use TinyCC in their product because they can't link dynamically to
> the library.
>   Daniel

I actually agree with staying with LGPL, but there is something to
bear in mind. While I don't think Apple would let an app with TCC onto
the iPhone anyways, if they did then it would HAVE TO be statically

Be that as it may, static linking could be taken care of with a
license exception.

Android has an official "No GPL in Userspace" policy (which includes LGPL). A vendor who adds GPL software to their install image cannot use the Android trademark to describe the result.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]