Thanks for the answer. I'm aware of the difference between GPL or LGPL. My question was mostly to try to figure why there was a difference between the library and the lua binding Having the library in LGPLv2.1 seems to show a certain intent while having GPLv2 on the Lua binding shows a different intent (while most Lua modules are MIT). I guess I'll have to wait and see if Felix can chime in.
thanks Jeff On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:23 AM, <edgar.sol...@web.de> wrote: > On 13.08.2013 21:54, Jeff Remy wrote: >> Hi, >> I have a question regarding the UCI Lua bindings license. >> libuci itself is LGPLv2.1, the cli utility is GPLv2 and the Lua >> bindings are GPLv2. >> I was wondering if this was on purpose? >> It does not seem to be in line with the library but again, there might >> be other reasons. > > i am not associated to the UCI authors/project. so i cannot tell you why they > did it. > > however, usually licensing like this is done because GPL is restrictive when > it comes to linking. see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works > > because of that lots of projects choose to provide libraries on LGPL or other > licenses that do not enforce an OS license on the code the library is linked > against to make the library more attractive for commercial usage. other > components that do not need to be linked stay under GPL though. > > ..ede > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
