search

iszak / jpeg2000

JPEG2000 decoder/encoder in Rust
Mozilla Public License 2.0
12 stars 2 forks source link

Project license #3

Closed davystrong closed 2 years ago

davystrong commented 2 years ago

Hello, any chance you can add a license to this project?

iszak commented 2 years ago

I haven't given any thought on which license to use. Is there any particular ones you would prefer and why?

davystrong commented 2 years ago

I was thinking of attempting to implement a JPEG 2000 reader, and if this had an open license like MIT or Apache, I would start with it. Though the chances of me actually succeeding are probably slim.

iszak commented 2 years ago

I am considering LGPL to ensure any modifications are also released, but usage is permitted. Would this be acceptable in your use case?

davystrong commented 2 years ago

Honestly, I'm not a fan copyleft licenses, though it's obviously up to you. I get why they exist - I agree that any work which improves on your original work with the intention of reading JPEG 2000 images should be published in the same way. The problem is that (correct me if I'm wrong) anything that uses the library must also be open source, with the possible exception of dynamically linked libraries.

iszak commented 2 years ago

My understanding is slightly different in that any code using the library without modification does not have to open source anything. If there are modifications to the library, then the modifications must be open sourced, but not the code using the library. LGPL is more of a weaker/less "copyleft" license and I have no intention of forcing anyone only using this library to open source their code.

davystrong commented 2 years ago

That would be perfect, but various places suggest it requires the library to be dynamically linked (this SO question, this SO question and, indirectly, gnu.org). As I understand it, this is impractical in Rust.

iszak commented 2 years ago

You appear to be right, there's some issues around static linking with LGPL, it seems it can be fixed with a linking exception but I'd rather have a unmodified license. Another alternative is the Mozilla Public License, which is also a weak copy left, which does permit static linking without modification. Would this be an acceptable license for yourself?

davystrong commented 2 years ago

I saw the Mozilla Public license too. It would be perfect to me, but it is a very weak copy left license, so it depends if that's acceptable to you.

iszak commented 2 years ago

This project is now licensed under MPL 2.0