Hacker News Reader

Comment by Teknoman117 | Hacker News Reader

GPL means its pretty much unusable...

Author here. We’re still in the process of figuring out what the right open-source licensing model for Boden should be. In the long run, development must be financed by a viable business model as Boden is not a hobby project. We’re considering adding a commercial option later, ending up with a dual GPL/commercial license similar to other projects. We’re happy to hear your thoughts about other licensing options!

I should have been a little clearer than my one line quip. I wasn't trying to say you should give it out for free :). It's just that GPL and LGPL (v3 specifically) are extremely hard or impossible to comply with in the mobile world.

Even if the software author complies with terms and provides full source or in the case of LGPL, enough to relink the app with a modified version of a LGPL'd component, you can't really swap the app for your modified one due to the "protections" in place on Android and iOS.

Personally, I'd suggest taking a look at how Qt does their commercial licensing.

Why?

Because anything you build with it is automatically GPL as well.

If you create a program that links with a GPL library, the program as a whole must itself also be GPL - which is not always acceptable. See section 5 of the GPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

"You may convey a work based on the Program ... provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ... c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy"

Not always. I believe a common understanding is if it statically links with GPL code, then it spreads to your code. If it dynamically links then your program is not hit with GPL, as the user is able to change the dynamic library with their own. If what you dewxribed were the case, then the Tivoization lawsuit would have went differently instead of GPLv3 coming out.

> I believe a common understanding is if it statically links with GPL code, then it spreads to your code. If it dynamically links then your program is not hit with GPL

The FSF disagrees: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDyna...

> If what you dewxribed were the case, then the Tivoization lawsuit would have went differently instead of GPLv3 coming out.

The anti-Tivoization clause of GPLv3 doesn't deal with a linking issue, it deals with the fact that even if the device maker releases code for modifications under GPLv2, that doesn't let the user modify and replace the code on the device if the device is locked down so as not to accept modified code, and the user hasn't been provided with the appropriate incantations to unlock it.

You are confusing the terms.of the GPL and LGPL. The GPL does require a program linked to a GPL library to be distributed under the GPL as well. This requirement is not in the LGPL. There, you only have to provide the user with the means to exchange the LGPL library with a different, possibly modified one.

Because you have to license your iOS App as GPL if you want to use this framework. GPL is not compatible with the AppStore terms. They say they plan to dual license with a (free) commercial license in the future...

Shouldn't LGPL be used here?

Not even. With the anti-tivoization stuff in (L)GPLv3, you still can't comply even with LGPLv3. Even if you provide a way to relink the binary parts of the app, you can't really replace the app with the modified one because of the way apps are deployed to mobile devices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com