Deimos X11 bindings license question

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, September 05, 2017 18:23:00 jmh530 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 18:12:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> > But LGPL and GPL are very different licenses. Also, while I
> > don't have time to participate in yet another debate on the
> > topic, the GPL does not in any way restrict users. Using GPL
> > code means you promise *not* to impose restrictions. Feel free
> > to use whatever license you want, but please do not make
> > inaccurate claims about them.
>
> I suppose it depends on how you define user. Someone who simply
> uses GPL code without distributing it would not face
> restrictions. However, if you use GPL code in a project and want
> to distribute it, then you also have to license that project as
> GPL.

The GPL ensures that code is always out in the open and available by
restricting what the folks working on it can do with it and with any code
that would get used with it. If you're using the GPL, you can't keep your
code private. You're forced to make it and anything that you link to it
available. The goal is to ensure that folks using any products built with
that code have access to the code and can do what they want with it. It's
taking freedom away from the developers while trying to ensure the freedom
of those who use it. The LGPL is less restrictive in that it can be linked
against code that isn't GPL or LGPL without forcing that code to be made
available, but ultimately, the code that is LGPL still forces you to make
any changes available and does not allow the developers the freedom to do
what they want with it.

On the other hand, licenses like the BSD licenses or Boost try and ensure
the freedom of the developers to do what they want with with the code. They
can put it in proprietary products and muck with it however they like and
don't have to provide any of their changes to anyone. At most, they have to
admit to using the code by distributing the copyright with the binary (in
the case of the BSD licenses anyway - Boost doesn't even require that). So,
the developers have full freedom, but the users of the products have zero
guarantee that they'll have access to any of that source code or the ability
to change the code in the product.

Ultimately, it's about who you want to give freedom to, and how you want to
restrict people. Neither group of licenses grants full freedom, because by
giving freedom to one group, you take it away from the other.

If you go with a BSD or Boost license, you're maximizing who can use your
software, but you have no guarantees that any improvements will be made
available, whereas the (L)GPL does guarantee that those improvements will be
made available (assuming that folks behave themselves and follow the license
anyway), but that means that there are a lot of projects that can't use your
software, because those restrictions are unacceptable to those developing
it.

Personally, I think that the Boost or BSD-type licenses are ultimately
better, but there's a good argument to be had that the (L)GPL has done a lot
of good too. And ultimately, which is most appropriate for your software
depends on what your goals are.

- Jonathan M Davis