|Subject:||Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world use.|
|Date:||Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:29:16 +0000|
Thanks. I know it can seem that way but I guess it comes down to what I want to build and how the derivative will help. It would almost reverse engineer half of the project through common sense if I released the source of this one library, otherwise I wouldn't really come out of the shadows and ask. Releasing code and acknowledgements should be a personal choice not an enforced one. Some proprietary software makes more sense than others to do this. So another thing is about flexibility. I just can't release derivative code. LuaJit it is. I will check back again now and then on the status of TinyCC; it has been a favorite of mine for a couple of years now. And by favorite, I mean tinker around with it in my own lab, because it wasn't going anywhere else sadly.
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+address@hidden <tinycc-devel-bounces+address@hidden> on behalf of Stephan Beal <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world use.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:01 PM, John B <address@hidden> wrote:
fwiw, i Public Domain and/or MIT all my sources. i'm not a fan of viral licenses (and avoid the GPL like the plague), but i have never experienced that the LGPL has been a real hindrance to a library's use (as opposed to imagined, when people misunderstand it to be viral to their code). i.e. i think you're over-reacting to it being LGPL. (If it were GPL, i'd be in full agreement with you.)
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|