search

keybuk / libnih

NIH Utility Library
GNU General Public License v2.0
90 stars 28 forks source link

License choice #14

Closed xnox closed 9 years ago

xnox commented 9 years ago

I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not, but can license be changed to LGPL-2.1+ or GPL-2.0+? Instead of current GPL-2.0-only ?

keybuk commented 9 years ago

It's deliberate

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Dimitri John Ledkov < notifications@github.com> wrote:

I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not, but can license be changed to LGPL-2.1+ or GPL-2.0+? Instead of current GPL-2.0-only ?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/keybuk/libnih/issues/14.

Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?

xnox commented 9 years ago

ok =( shame, I'll double check but looks like I will not be able to use it then, for my new side project. Also looking at e.g. lxc source code it's nih-nih-nih things that could have used libnih - logging/file parsing/mainloop etc.

keybuk commented 9 years ago

Sure you can, you can license your side project under GPLv2

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov < notifications@github.com> wrote:

ok =( shame, I'll double check but looks like I will not be able to use it then, for my new side project. Also looking at e.g. lxc source code it's nih-nih-nih things that could have used libnih - logging/file parsing/mainloop etc.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/keybuk/libnih/issues/14#issuecomment-64703467.

Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?

xnox commented 9 years ago

Not really, the set of licenses I wanted to link against include GPLv2 and LGPLv3 (the rest are bsd / public domain stuff). And these two are not compatible, even if my code is (dual-)licensed under GPLv2...

So I'm stuck in rewritting things or trying out different unfamiliar things that are license compatible. Anyway, my problems =)