Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by davexunit 3911 days ago
So, the free world can use this library and the proprietary world will have to develop their own if they want to use the format. Proprietary software developers get to piggy back off of tons of free software, and then when someone decides that they don't want to enable that for their particular program/library, people complain about it. It makes no sense.
3 comments
skrause 3911 days ago
A while ago I wanted to include a library in some GPLv3 software, but I couldn't because that library was GPL2-only with no "or any later version" clause. And both versions of the GPL are not compatible unless the GPL2 software has this "or any later version" clause.

So even if you stay strictly within the free software universe, even only within in GPL universe, a strong-copyleft license is a bad choice for a library.

link
brianwawok 3911 days ago
I think license depends on your goal. If your goal is to create a web image format.. you need all the browsers to agree to include you. All browsers will not add a GPLv3 image type. Therefore it is dead before it launched.
link
davexunit 3911 days ago
The author has expressed interest in dual-licensing, so there will probably still be options. GPLv3+ or LGPLv3+ sounds reasonable.
link
snuxoll 3911 days ago
LGPLv3 will still prevent use of Windows Phone, iOS and Android.
link
davexunit 3911 days ago
No, that's backwards. Microsoft and Apple and Google prevent the usage of the GPL/LGPL. Don't blame the GPL for the bad behavior of large corporations that are using their immense power to try to stop copyleft.
link
lucian1900 3911 days ago
No open source software can use this unless it is already GPLv3. Most of it isn't.
link