[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world use.

From: John B
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world use.
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:01:04 +0000

@ Stephan,

Thank you for your email.  I guess I was hoping for a different outcome, lol.  I know what you are saying but I thought I could ask anyway.  Also I was hoping maybe a previous version of it that didn't include as many devs on-boarding from the 2013 version could be changed.  Thus nulling out the sign-off on devs that came afterwards.  But I can't really speak to that, just putting ideas out there.

Another point isn't so much getting what I want, this minute, today, either.  A part of it is opening up the discussion and seeing what the future releases may hold.  tinycc is something I can use for years so I am in no hurry and for now luajit has proven OK, but it is not my first choice.

Despite the implications that I am a bad person for asking, I think the discussion is healthy for the project.  Because bsd license I believe would be 100x healthier for the project.  People would absolutely contribute back, but in a de-identified way.  I Absolutely believe this.

From: tinycc-devel-bounces+address@hidden <tinycc-devel-bounces+address@hidden> on behalf of Stephan Beal <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 2:51 AM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world use.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:08 AM, John B <address@hidden> wrote:
There is a real impact to the time it takes to build something.  Yes I do have an idea where I can apply a modified version of tinycc.  Honestly though? I can think of a trillion different ways I can use it as well if not for idea # 1.  So another part of it is flexibility.  And more over I really hate that you guys put a lot of work into this and it remains in perpetual toy status because people are afraid of lgpl.  There is after all, a reason other open source licenses exist.

AFAIR, the license cannot be changed without approval from every single copyright holder. Even if 99% agreed and one person held out, you're out of luck. The LGPL is not truly viral - its infection stays within the code it is explicitly added to. If you're not willing to release your modifications of tcc under the LGPL, then you're out of luck, as it's exceedingly unlikely that TCC _could_ be relicensed at this point (i'm assuming at least one of the copyright-holding contributors is not reachable any longer).

----- stephan beal
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf

reply via email to

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