Quote:
Originally Posted by eureka
...
And... GPL3 license for library? Really? It can limit your userbase (I mean, number of developers which will use your library). Could you please re-license (or double license) it to BSD or MIT?
|
A lot of developers are not even allowed to DOWNLOAD GPL-infected files. In some cases, it can be grounds for termination of employment. Open source that cannot be used on the job is not very "open". The only legal way to mix GPL programs with closed source commercial apps is via STDOUT/STDIN piping, and that can be very difficult due to unflushed buffer contents stuck in the GPL program. I do use LGPL in commercial apps, but you can only do dynamic linking, which means you cannot use it in small embedded devices. A lot of GPL and LGPL projects (like SDL for example) have been migrating AWAY from GPL so that they can be used in commercial embedded devices.
Sometimes it has taken a LOT of searching to find a non-GPL solution that I could borrow for non-trivial functions. Much too often, I have had to go all the way back to the original research papers (some as old as 1954 in one case), and write my code from scratch based on those papers. All when there were nice GPL implementations that I could not use just because they were GPL. BSD or MIT would have saved me a HUGE amount of hours to reinvent that code in a way that I could use in my project.
SUMMARY: Please discard that GPL license and convert it to friendly MIT or BSD.