[sidewinder128]

It looked very promising but GPL for mobile iOS and Android Apps It is impossible, even I release the Apps free it is very difficult to work with GPL on those ecosystems. It is sad because it really looks very cool code.

[kiki_jiki]

From the FAQ:

> Finally, there will be a commercial licensing option for everyone who cannot or does not want to comply with the GPL.

[sidewinder128]

Thanks for the insight. I hope they can make it happen easy and with a reasonable price I will get it.

[gitoby]

Boden author here, a bit overwhelmed by the feedback. We are in the process of releasing a new version that will change the license to LGPL / Commercial.

[jacobush]

LGPL has the same problem! Users must be able to relink an application with their own version of the LGPL library. This is impossible for almost all iOS scenarios and only very slightly easier on Android.

This is often overlooked. If you want to keep LGPL you can investigate "linking exception", it's used by some GNU libraries if I recall correctly.

This has been discussed for a decade:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/459833/which-open-source...

https://roadfiresoftware.com/2013/08/the-problem-with-using-...

[DerDangDerDang]

It’s not unreasonable to expect people to buy a commercial licence if they’re releasing to a commercial app store

[kbutler]

Is it reasonable to expect people to buy a commercial license if releasing a free app to a commercial app store?

Probably depends on the reasonable(?) license fee.

[vorpalhex]

If it's a truly free app, why not release your source code?

[kbutler]

The GPL is not compatible with Apple's App Store restrictions, so giving away your source code is not sufficient to comply with the GPL.

"The primary problem is that Apple imposes numerous legal restrictions on use and distribution...through the iTunes Store Terms of Service, which is forbidden by section 6 of GPLv2."

https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

See also https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/59495

There is also a significant difference between giving away free applications and giving away the source code. Both from an internal perspective (the company may want to charge for the product or related products or products on other platforms now or in the future) and an external perspective (the app may require other software for which the company does not have rights to release source code).

"Here's a free loaf of bread."

"Why don't you just give me the bread factory and the farms that supplied the ingredients?"

[smashedtoatoms]

Maybe because some mega corp will figure out how to offer it as a service, and they'll get nothing for it. I support them defending themselves with a way to maybe make money on it. If they can't eat, they can't update the code.

[ctvo]

For any number of reasons that the author should be able to decide and not be forced into doing?

The original comment was that this would limit adoption due to licensing restrictions, and I'm not sure how this change helps.

[gitoby]

Please take the following with a grain of salt. I am not a legal expert, but we have competent US lawyers assessing this for us right now.

The main issue we see with the GPL is that your app has to be effectively licensed under the GPL too, which makes your app's license incompatible with the iOS App Store's terms of service.

This is apparently not the case with the LGPL. Yes, you will have to provide a way for users to relink your application to another version of Boden. As far as I can see (I am not a lawyer), this can happen outside of the iOS App Store.

Our US lawyers are currently investigating this. As soon as we get a reliable assessment from the legal experts, we'll add an LGPL option to Boden.

[sidewinder128]

I think LGPL is really more reasonable than the GPL as VLC case did.

Also you could follow the JUCE library model they got their free version and the pay version with a very attractive payment model.

I like JUCE but the components for mobile still not native l&f, Boden looks very promise with clean code using c++17.

But please keep a reasonable price for developers that make free apps and easy to pay.

Also if you could get a Rust version that it will change everything :)

[jacobush]

Tell me, when your user has downloaded an app and wants to relink it with their custom version of Boden, how do they proceed?

[detaro]

LGPL 2.1 6c - on request, you provide the user with object code they can link against their custom version. Should be enough, if no other terms of the app store get in the way?

(VLC is an example of a well-known program that relicensed to LGPL and now is available in the app store, so clearly it is possible)

[jacobush]

And how does the user then get their relinked app onto their phone?

(There are plenty of App Store apps with LGPL code in them. The question is, should they be there? And VLC is not a good example, since presumably, I don't know - but I think all of it is LGPL or in any case, open source. The user can rebuild all of VLC in that example. The situation with Boden is going to be that a an app, probably proprietary, has a Boden library in it.)

[gitoby]

If the app is open source (or at least the source code is accessible), the user would proceed to the source repo, clone it, open the Xcode project and relink to the framework version of their choice.

Others have pointed out how it could work with closed source apps. It's a bit more complicated, but it certainly is possible.

[jacobush]

It would be prudent to advertise this expectation of the app developer hoping to use the LGPL version. (Whereas with for instance the MPL and other licenses, no such need exists.)

[denisw]

Consider the Mozilla Public License (MPL) [1]. It is copyleft in the sense that modifications to the library must be MPL-licensed as well, but doesn't impose any restrictions on apps merely using the library. This avoids the LGPL’s complicated re-linking requirements which are very hard to fulfill for iOS apps (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread).

[1]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/

[king_magic]

Even that makes this a complete nonstarter for almost every one of my clients.

[DerDangDerDang]

Your clients are unwilling to pay for a commercial licence?

[king_magic]

No, my clients are unwilling to build against LGPL software.

[detaro]

Then they can buy a commercial license and need not touch any LGPL software.

[app4soft]

Hi! I vote for keep Boden licensed under GPL.

Lets keep Boden FLOSS forever!

[adelarsq]

Why not MIT License?

[gitoby]

We have put a lot of effort into investigating and assessing different licensing options. There are two different perspectives on this: the user perspective where MIT of course seems to be among the most attractive ones at first glance. Then, there's the company perspective: what is the business model and how is development going to be sustainable in the long run?

We have come to the conclusion that LGPL is currently the best option to align both of these perspectives and provide the best value in the long run.

If GPL/LGPL isn't sufficient for you, we'll be offering a commercial license with fair terms as an alternative.

[sanxiyn]

This seems available under GPL v2. v2 is okay with App Store.

[lazerwalker]

Apple's App Store licensing agreement allows you to distribute GPL v2 software. However, the GPL v2 license does not allow distribution under Apple's licensing terms.

It's possible to have GPL v2-licensed software on the App Store, but it essentially requires relicensing or dual licensing by the copyright holder (which is what they do here with selling a commercial license to distribute).

[saagarjha]

VLC was pulled from the App Store due to its license being GPLv2 at the time.