[frik]

What about the license of Node.js/Chromium? Isn't linking a closed source library (Chakra) problematic?

You know it includes multiple code parts under various licenses, Wikipedia says: BSD license, MIT License, LGPL, MS-PL and MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licensed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser) )

There is a reason why major open source projects like Linux, etc. choose licenses like GNU GPL v2+. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

[poizan42]

It's already linked against tons of closed source libraries when built on windows, why would one more make a difference?

[chc]

Based on that license list, I don't see how any of those would present a problem. Do you?

[coldtea]

>Isn't linking a closed source library (Chakra) problematic?

Yeah, because the tech world didn't have enough problems with projects being immature, unreliable, stale 30+ year designs, abandoned, incompatible, not provided by a specific distribution, coflicting, patented and 100 other issues to consider.

It just had to also add 200 legal distinctions behind what you can and you cannot do, and how you can link stuff and under what circumstances.

[magicalist]

If you're asking if software licenses are important, the answer is yes, they're very important.

To the GP, though, I don't immediately see how linking to Chakra in this way would be a license issue. The more important thing is the license information for Node, though, not Chromium: https://github.com/joyent/node/blob/master/LICENSE (some overlap but quite a bit that doesn't)

[coldtea]

>If you're asking if software licenses are important, the answer is yes, they're very important.

I'm not asking about their importance, I complain about their existince (and need).