[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

From: Thomas Preud'homme
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:36:42 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; )

Le jeudi 2 mai 2013 13:28:52, Daniel Glöckner a écrit :
> Hi Rune,
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:37:58AM +0000, address@hidden wrote:
> > From my perspective I'd like to skip the additional worry about which
> > programs can be linked to which libraries and "how".
> if you are a packager, why do you have to worry about that?
> I mean, if you still have the possibility to chose which library to
> link to, most of the time the program is already (L)GPL compatible.
> And if you always use the shared library, there is never a problem
> with LGPL.

By the way, you might be interested in reading http://lwn.net/Articles/548216/

> > I dislike dynamic linking for technical reasons (too much complexity,
> > artificial limitations and side effects, many times for no gain). Then,
> > I dislike licenses which force me to use inferior/inappropriate technical
> > means.
> Can you elaborate on that? Aside from some people not understanding
> how to use SONAMEs (Tegra 2 libjpeg.so binary blob...), I've never had
> problems with shared libraries. Off the top of my head I remember three
> cases where shared libs were superior:

Nicely summarized here:


Best regards,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]