Closed pdhahn closed 6 years ago
I've licenced it under LGPL, feel free to use it, and improve it as you like.
Oh I wish I could but now it's under LGPL, not a commercial-friendly MIT or BSD (or ZLIB, Apache, etc.) license. Any 3rd party package with "(L)GPL" terms is a non-starter for me in commercial product development. Thanks anyway! :-)
Well, I don't really have time to research the inner working of licences, I put my code open-source by default, and for me that means (L)-GPL. I'm not against any other open-source licence that would be more commercially friendly, it's just that I don't know them, and don't have time to research the details of all the licences.
Could you quickly unlighten me about what makes LGPL prohibitive to commercial products? I thought the whole point of using LGPL instead of GPL was to make it suitable for propriatary software uses.
The LGPL is similar to the GPL, but is more designed for software libraries where you want to allow non-GPL applications to link to your library and utilise it. If you modify the software, you still have to give back the source code, but you are allowed to link it with proprietary stuff without giving the source code to all of that back.
What's wrong with that?
This package has been relicenced as BSD-2 now.
Please add a license file for this code. Use MIT or BSD license so this code can be used without issue in any kind of application, including commercial.