License clarification

[cblc]

This closed issue mentions that the license is dual and you can choose either LGPL or Apache. For me, LGPL is not an option (you never know when you might need static linking for either technical reasons or from a vendor requirement). MIT/BSD would be perfect. Apache good too.

But, however, looking at the repo, it's defined as LGPL-only, with no mention of the Apache choice. So, what's the license?

You mention you want maximum adoption of the library. If that's the case, then MIT/BSD is the way to go, IMHO.

[CryptoCrocodile]

Thanks for opening the thread @cblc . I'd like to chime in and second that. We're considering adoption as well, however, the LGPL/Apache situation is tricky. We'd prefer MIT/BSD or zlib as well.

@darkaegisagain if it's OK for you I'd submit a PR with the dual license to MIT or BSD. I think to maximize adoption 2-clause BSD or zlib is the way to go as it frees company from the mandatory disclosure - that's always a breaking point as it might be forgotten accidentally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib_License

[conversy]

@clbc

For me, LGPL is not an option (you never know when you might need static linking for either technical reasons or from a vendor requirement)

AFAIU, LGPL does not prevent from static linking a closed-source application:

(1) If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic

[jamesdolan]

If the goal is to increase adoption, LGPL is pretty incompatible with commercial software and signed code distributions and thus incompatible with getting wide adoption. A permissive license (MIT, BSD, ZLIB, etc) I think makes the most sense for making everyone happen. Or maybe dual license if for some reason GPL products don't like that?

Also. The argument that you can just release the object files to a commercial app as evidence that it's workable.... well that's exactly the sort of thing commercial software is trying to avoid.

Anyways. Really cool project! Hopefully this can help keep OpenGL alive!

[conversy]

@jamesdolan well, I was just answering @cblc 's concerns. Anyway the decision is up to @darkaegisagain, I think he's not against changing the license, he just has... to do it :-) I'm (guenuingly) looking forward to witnessing widespread adoption once this is done, as I think this project could really benefit from external contributions...

[darkaegisagain]

If someone wants to make the change I will check it in, I don’t have access to my development system at this time of the year.

Mike

On Jul 22, 2024, at 9:06 AM, conversy @.***> wrote:

@jamesdolan https://github.com/jamesdolan well, I was just answering @cblc https://github.com/cblc 's concerns. Anyway the decision is up to @darkaegisagain https://github.com/darkaegisagain, I think he's not against changing the license, he just has... to do it :-) I'm (guenuingly) looking forward to witnessing widespread adoption once this is done, as I think this project could really benefit from external contributions...

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openglonmetal/MGL/issues/71#issuecomment-2243318333, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACOKD37WP4FA7B6FCK2TS2LZNUUY5AVCNFSM6AAAAABLDSA2SSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENBTGMYTQMZTGM. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

[conversy]

It seems that you've already updated most if not all source files to include the Apache 2.0 header. I submitted a PR that changes LICENSE content from LGPL content to Apache 2.0 content. I think you've already asked all contributors if they are ok with that, so I guess it might only be a matter of merging the PR?

[darkaegisagain]

You can do a PR, you have rights I believe MikeSent from my iPhoneOn Jul 23, 2024, at 12:23 AM, conversy @.***> wrote: It seems that you've already updated most if not all source files to include the Apache 2.0 header. I submitted a PR that changes LICENSE content from LGPL content to Apache 2.0 content. I think you've already asked all contributors if they are ok with that, so I guess it might only be a matter of merging the PR?

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[conversy]

yes but since it's an important decision, I was letting you do it instead. Ok, so I'm doing it.

[darkaegisagain]

No worries I hope you are enjoying your summerMikeSent from my iPhoneOn Jul 23, 2024, at 8:39 AM, conversy @.***> wrote: Closed #71 as completed.

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[darkaegisagain]

Well shoot... I updated my 2015 27" iMac using OpenCore and it crashes on one of the metal calls. Now I have to revert the entire machine back to Catalina to run MGL.

Mike

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:11 AM Dr. Guy Madison @.***> wrote:

No worries I hope you are enjoying your summer

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 23, 2024, at 8:39 AM, conversy @.***> wrote:



Closed #71 https://github.com/openglonmetal/MGL/issues/71 as completed.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openglonmetal/MGL/issues/71#event-13617851162, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACOKD37CSMU2NKAYTO77IBTZNZ2K7AVCNFSM6AAAAABLDSA2SSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV45UABCJFZXG5LFIV3GK3TUJZXXI2LGNFRWC5DJN5XDWMJTGYYTOOBVGEYTMMQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>