LGPL? Seriously?

[TheQuantumPhysicist]

With all due respect, your whole library doesn't really make more than 100 lines of code. It's a bunch of #ifdefs and a class, and you're publishing this with LGPL? Seriously? Are you surprised that only amateurs use your library, if ever? I will never understand developers that do what you're doing.

Consider changing the license to something less ridiculous and more useful, such as MIT or BSD.

Cheers!

[auscaster]

It was originally part of libsourcey which is LGPL.

…

On 5 July 2017 at 14:03, samerafach ***@***.***> wrote: With all due respect, your whole library doesn't really make more than 100 lines of code. It's a bunch of #ifdefs and a class, and you're publishing this with LGPL? Seriously? Are you surprised that only amateurs use your library, if ever? I will never understand developers that do what you're doing. Consider changing the license to something less ridiculous and more useful, such as MIT or BSD. Cheers! — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGKDHq9opDHjl0rYjjJqOClBa-Oc6LXks5sK3uMgaJpZM4OOPdn> .

[Turbine1991]

What do you have against LGPL? You can include it in your project without releasing your source, unlike GPL.

[TheQuantumPhysicist]

@Turbine1991 LGPL code cannot be statically with your projects, and any change must be published.

[Turbine1991]

Oh, you're right statically. But then again even DLLs use headers under such a license. I don't think these develops would chase you up or even considered this.

'LGPL allows you to use and distribute the open source software with your application without releasing the source code for your application.

GPL requires you to release the source code of your application if you choose to use and distribute the GPL licensed open source software with your application. In other words, your application must also be licensed under the GPL.'