Permit static linking

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi! Thank you for great work! But it could be more useful if you permitted 
static linking to proprietary programs (for example, it's not an option to load 
many dynamic libraries on embedded system)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by annu...@gmail.com on 18 Aug 2010 at 3:20

[GoogleCodeExporter]

As in licensing? I can see that would be an issue - however if you required it 
to be used for some specific product then we could always agree different terms 
for that product.

Original comment by pur3m...@googlemail.com on 19 Aug 2010 at 11:18

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

So you don't want to do it?

Original comment by annu...@gmail.com on 19 Aug 2010 at 12:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'd also love to see tiny-js with a less restrictive license (MIT or BSD 
License, for example), as the current license (LGPL) does not permit static 
linking, that is, without an exception, which is a real buzzkill.

and i'm likely not the only person who thinks like that.

Original comment by 237...@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2011 at 5:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I also see the license restriction that prohibits static linking as a problem, 
which is a pity because an interpreter this small is very attractive for many 
scenarios.

Original comment by jndiogo on 4 Aug 2011 at 10:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Agreed. I too would like the option of using this in a commercial product.

Original comment by twil...@pulse-robotics.com on 9 Aug 2011 at 12:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'll have a look at this... I agree that the lack of static linking (unless you 
are yourself open source) sucks. Any suggestions on licence?

My issue really is that since making it Open Source I've spent a huge amount of 
time supporting TinyJS for free, answering questions and implementing features 
for others which I don't use in my software. I work for myself and as such if I 
keep doing work for free I'll go bust.

I'd hoped that some company might come along and actually be willing to pay for 
support (or god forbid actually pay for a licence), however that hasn't 
happened yet. I have a feeling that properly allowing free commercial use will 
just make this situation worse. I'd like to be proven wrong though :)

Original comment by pur3m...@googlemail.com on 9 Aug 2011 at 9:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Any update on a more permissible license?  I've been looking for a lightweight 
java-script interpreter.

Check Wikipedia list of licenses:
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licences

Google code (your project host) only supports a few. However popular licenses 
that support free commercial use: MIT, BSD, Apache

Thing to note: Packages using GPL/LGPL software are not allowed for iOS 
development. That means iPhone/iPad developers would not be able to use tiny-js 
as a small lightweight scripting engine.

Original comment by Bonnie...@gmail.com on 1 Oct 2011 at 3:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You can switch from JS to Lua. AFAIK it's accepted on iOS if you don't download 
scripts from net.

BTW, on iOS you already have full fledged JIT-enabled JS interpreter 
(JavaScriptCore inside WebKit.framework)

Original comment by annu...@gmail.com on 3 Oct 2011 at 12:43

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Have now changed to an MIT License, so you're free to use TinyJS pretty much 
however you see fit.

Original comment by pur3m...@googlemail.com on 10 Jan 2012 at 8:49

• Changed state: Fixed