MIT License over LGPL

[Chaser]

Hi, this concept is super fascinating. However LGPL v3 license is not so favourable.

Would you consider changing to MIT? What would be some concerns around doing so?

Let me know if you would like to discuss more.

Thanks, Chase.

[ghaith]

Hello @Chaser,

first of thank you for checking out the project. To clarify the licensing, it is actually L-GPL V3 for the most part. The L-GPL is an extension over the GPL which is why the GPL is there. This means you could integrate it into other projects without having to make them GPL in turn.

The reason we didn't go with MIT is that we would like to get the contributions back, and I feel something like MIT or BSD is too permissive. Apache 2.0 was an option since it requires attribution, but it does not required the users to contribute back. The options were then MPL and EPL2.0 for more flexible copyleft but we eventually went with GPL. We are using GPL-3 and not GPL-2 for compatibility with the Apache 2.0 License.

I feel the LGPL for a compiler is a good balance, you can still make modifications or add features that are not GPL by simply providing the object files of the LGPL parts, which is why most of the project is created as a library and not an executable.
This means you can have the compiler be a part of a bigger toolchain, and even have support for new languages in closed source parts. The only restriction is that fixing issues in the compiler or extending the codegen/ast for new features could be reused upstream.

I don't want to exclude a license change in the future but it might also not be easy as every contributor has to agree to it. But if there's a more flexible license that can guarantee contributions I would be open to discuss that.

[riederm]

hi @Chaser,
can you maybe elaborate where exactly you would expect some problems with L-GPL-3?

I would also like to move this into a discussion, rather than keeping this as an issue - so if nobody vetos I'll convert this into a discussion later today.

[Chaser]

Hi, thanks for the prompt response. I am discussing with people internally. I hope to be able to provide some reasoning soon.

[TheColonel2688]

My vote is that I think LGPL is fine, for the reasons stated by ghaith

Normally, I think GPL is Cancer. The FSF is a political organization rather than an org that tries to represent the best interests of developers. They are shady. There is a good reason Linus Torvalds doesn't like them.

This project is never going to go into end-user (Code of Equipment) code. It will be used to generate end-user code. Also, it is LGPL, not GPL.

I would have used MPL 2.0 instead, though.

[TheColonel2688]

I am confused, why can't you store or distribute it internally?

My understanding has always been that a company can modify and distribute GPL code internally, but that they they can't distribute it out side the organization without providing source code.

Is that wrong? Or is this specific company policy thing?

Edit:

Further if you don't modify the code then the restrictions don't apply. Simply downloading compiling and executing the code. Should not invite the license at all.

[Chaser]

I am not a lawyer but LGPL means there is risk and its been deemed great enough that the license is not accepted easily (hence my request).

[TheColonel2688]

@Chaser

So you are not allowed to use any GPL or LGPL software?

Are there any licenses that are acceptable that still require modified code and improvements to be contributed back?

Like MPL is a nice middle ground and my favorite license, would MPL 2.0 be acceptable?

Or do you want no obligation to contribute back?

[riederm]

I find the discussion a bit vague, so far it's not clear to me what the risk behind lgpl is.

When picking lgpl we wanted to make sure that if you use this project as a starting point and extend it into whatever direction, that you contribute your changes back to the community.

This license does not touch the software that gets compiled with this compiler. ghaith keeps pointing out that this may not be true for the std-lib that is part of this sdk, but as long as you don't statically link (include) it into your binary, you should be perfectly fine.

[TheColonel2688]

@Chaser but we are still confused as to the details and reason for your request.

@riederm It is unclear to me too. My only guess is that the company lawyers have forbidden modifying any LGPL code, and he wants to modify it.

At their company, they have to go through a whole process to be allowed to release code. The employees or teams are not allowed to contribute code back without very high-level permission and review.

@Chaser please correct me where I am wrong

[TheColonel2688]

@ghaith @riederm

I encourage you guys to reach out to @Chaser and meet with his Company's Open Source Team.

I think by not doing so, you are wasting a huge opportunity for this project to grow.