Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
LGPL is NOT compatible with Cygwin's license (GPL+exceptions)LGPL is NOT compatible with Cygwin's license (GPL+exceptions)Posted Nov 20, 2008 8:07 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)In reply to: LGPL is compatible with Cygwin's license (GPL+exceptions) by dwheeler Parent article: MinGW and why Linux users should care
The people who are using libvirt are mostly developing a mix of in-house and proprietary
applications. They don't want to open source their code, nor do we want to discriminate against them by making them by a special license. They don't need to buy a special license for libvirt on Linux, nor to use proprietary APIs such as VMWare API / XenAPI.
(Log in to post comments)
LGPL is NOT compatible with Cygwin's license (GPL+exceptions) Posted Nov 20, 2008 12:21 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link] nor do we want to discriminate against them by making them buy a special license Since you consider licensing-based incentives to create free software as discrimination, what prevented you from (say) releasing libvirt into the public domain?
LGPL is NOT compatible with Cygwin's license (GPL+exceptions) Posted Nov 20, 2008 12:35 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]
LGPL protects the libvirt code while not imposing itself on other code that we didn't write.
As a free software developer yourself, you should know the difference between public domain, LGPL
LGPL is NOT compatible with Cygwin's license (GPL+exceptions) Posted Nov 20, 2008 12:36 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
This is a *management layer*. It's going to get used by people who have existing virtualization systems and want to manage them. Nobody, but nobody is going to say 'hey! my management layer uses GPL, so I should switch virtualization systems to one that is GPL!'. They'll just not use libvirt.
This is a classic example of a library that is better LGPLed than GPLed.
|
|||||||||||||