Loading...
 
Skip to main content

Development

Forum List Topic List

Forums » Development » GPL/LGPL
 
Thread actions
Print this page
  • Print all pages

    • GPL/LGPL

    Posted by nikolic posts: 12 ☆ ☆ ☆


    I was browsing around and it seems that there is a lot of issues that have raised regarding the licensing of TikiWiki.

    I was wondering, why is Tiki LGPL? Does it really have to be LGPL since it seems to be creating more work and other difficulties?

    Why not just change the license to GPL? This way new libraries won't have to be created, useful packages such as phpBB can be included, and other things that just seem to be less troublesome.

    Thanks, and thanks for tiki.

    Reads: 1327
    Posted by Terence? posts: 71 ☆ ☆ ☆ United States
    I personally agree that the GPL is more suitable for an application like Tiki. I cannot speak for the majority of the 200+ Tiki developers though. 😛

    Posted by Damian Parker posts: 2881 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ United Kingdom

    In order to change license to GPL everyone that commited code in Tiki holds part of the copyrights. It would mean asking and getting positive confirmation from everyone who ever committed to agree to the change. I for one prefer Tiki in the LGPL form and wouldnt vote for a change.

    Damian


    Posted by Amedee Van Gasse posts: 59 ☆ ☆ ☆ Belgium

    If you make a new work based on a GPL'ed work, the new work has to be also GPL'ed.
    That means it is impossible to include GPL in commercial software, so GPL and commercial software are incompatible.

    Works based on LGPL work otoh, don't have to be LGPL themselves. So LGPL work can have a much broader possible use.
    So LGPL is compatible with LGPL and with commercial licenses. But not with GPL, unfortunately.

    Posted by Terence? posts: 71 ☆ ☆ ☆ United States

    The LGPL is not always compatible with commercial licenses.

    "In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way. If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible. If there is no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible."
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible

    It is a common misconception that you can always combine LGPL code with code under any other licenses without a second thought. The only time LGPL code can be included in a product under any license (with minor restrictions) is if the resulting work is one that only "uses" the LGPL code and is not "based on" the LGPL. The safest way of drawing the line between these two concepts is to treat any work that includes modified LGPL code as "work based on" LGPL code. In such a case, the LGPL is "viral" just like the GPL, meaning the resulting work must be released under the LGPL as well. See clause #2 of the http://teem.sourceforge.net/lgpl.htmlLGPL.

    Remember that the LGPL was originally intended for libraries (hence the name Library GPL). Libraries are usually written in such a way that it can be plugged into any larger work without modifying any code.

    IMHO, there are few cases when Tiki's source code can be used unmodified in any outside project as Tiki is large and messy, lacking any good code documentation or API's. Therefore, there are probably few cases where Tiki's code can be used while avoiding the viral nature of the LGPL.

    From this, I've come to my opinion that Tiki doesn't put the crucial part of the LGPL to good use; in other words, there would be no great difference in Tiki code usage if the license were changed to the GPL. Relicensing would, however, open up many possibilities as there are more GPL web applications than LGPL/BSD ones.

    P.S. I am unsure about clause 2a of the LGPL. "The modified work must itself be a software library." However, since the LGPL can cover works that are more then mere libraries, I believe this term no longer applies.

    Posted by Amedee Van Gasse posts: 59 ☆ ☆ ☆ Belgium

    I agree totally with you and I thank you for your clarification.
    In short: commercial works ican use/i LGPL works but they icannot/i use GPL works because that would mean they became GPL themselves. That was the general message I wanted to bring.