Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pgcj_poster 2326 days ago
Firstly, it's not a "problem" when code is released under the GPL. In many cases this is the best way to protect user freedom.

Secondly, this is the Lesser GPL, which means that only modifications to the FLIF implementation itself have to be free. It can still be linked in proprietary programs as long as they don't make any modifications.
2 comments
mkl 2326 days ago
It can be linked in proprietary programs even if they do make modifications, they just need to release the modified source code (of the LGPL library). The trickier obstacle is that it is required to be able to replace the LGPL library with another version in the proprietary program. I.e. the LGPL library must be dynamically linked, or the linkable compiled object code for the rest of the proprietary program must be provided so the program can be relinked statically.
link
0xff00ffee 2325 days ago
> Firstly, it's not a "problem" when code is released under the GPL. In many cases this is the best way to protect user freedom.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

I went through a legal headache years ago releasing some software and our lawyers strongly urged against *GPL and pushed us to Apache because we would have had severely limited our opportunity for Fortune 500 companies. Apparently many prohibit anything with the letters GPL in the license, despite that the software was free and we were charging for services. It was a long headspinning debate and due to mounting legal fees we went with Apache.

link