On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 02:00:32PM -0500, Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 06:55:25PM +0100, u-x417_at_aetey.se wrote:
> > My motivation for the question below is the desire to use rwcdb with/for
> > permissively licensed software without imposing the extra constraints
> > stemming from LGPL.
> 
> What extra constraints does it impose? The LGPL doesn't taint software

By definition a license is a constraint (list of conditions to be
fulfilled) on the usage.

> that uses the library the way the GPL does, which is probably why FSF
> started calling it 'lesser gpl' instead of 'library gpl'.
> 
> The question and top answer here are probably helpful.
> 
>     http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/439136.html

Please do not assume that it is ignorance which leads people
to question the license :)

LGPL explicitly says that certain things are a must and other things
are not allowed.

If the limitations are harmless from your perspective, other people
feel differently.

> > I do explicitly _not_ mean to initiate a discussion of merits or drawbacks
> > of different licenses, different people do have different criteria. Here
> 
> But in that case it does become important, because various licenses (and
> even public domain) do have different merits and drawbacks. You are

The notion of merits and drawbacks is relative to who is reasoning,
there is no "general and absolute" merit or drawback.

I do not try to convince you that a more relaxed license would be better
for you (this is up to you to decide, I do not pretend to know).

I am just telling that it would be desirable for me (I know this better
than anyone who is not me), and probably appreciated by someone else too.

Thus, I humbly ask if you would be kind to allow the use of rwcdb
without the limitations of LGPL (like the linking mode choice, the source
delivery obligations and other constraints which can be noticeable for
someone else, like the prohibition of extra restrictions).

> My argument is that the LGPL is not the limiting factor for wider usage.

>From my perspective it evidently is. I would have used rwcdb, were it
not its license.

> I'm just arguing for the sake of argument here, but what if CMU does
> want to keep copyrights and decides that an Eclipse license is a better
> 'more business friendly' license. That would impose other constraints
> that may be incompatible with your goals. In fact, as Eclipse is GPL
> incompatible we wouldn't technically be allowed to link Coda with it
> anymore so I don't see that particular relicense happening any time
> soon.

That's why I would suggest releasing software into public domain,
or otherwise the fewer obligations the better.

Business friendly or not, this is _technically_ friendly, relieving
the developers and integrators from the extra (non-technical) duty
of license observation and analysis of compatibilities, as you note;
with the potential for errors and the resulting liabilities.

This is a real, serious burden when software of different origins is being
(re)used together.

Then, of course, the choice is yours. You created the software
(thanks!) and have all the power to release it as you wish.

Someone else is possibly using rwcdb just because it _is_ LGPL and would
reject it if it were public domain (?)

I am in the opposite group, that's why I asked.

Regards,
Rune.