esmil
Would you consider changing you license?
I see that lem and your Lua D-Bus binding are all licensed under LGPL3. I'm interested in using some of these components (particularly the D-Bus binding) for work related activities (focused on embedded Linux) but due to the Tivo-ization clause associated with Version 3 of the LGPL this makes it impractical. Would you consider changing the license from LGPLv3 to something along the lines of MIT/BSD - similar to what Lua is licensed with? I'm not opposed to contributing back bug-fixes or new enhancements to your projects but the existing license makes it difficult for me to invest any real time into working with your software. Please consider my request . . . I'd be willing to help you change the license if you're interested.
Thanks for your consideration...
Hi Glenn,
As you see I've taken up coding on LEM again. Now it really is licensed under LGPL, but perhaps this issue isn't relevant any more. If it is I don't really understand your problem with LGPL. Perhaps you could explain a bit further what it is you need that LGPL prevents you from doing.
Also the DBus library itself is dual licensed under the Academic Free License 2.1 and LGPL. However some parts of it is only LGPL, so you're probably already using software with that license.
It's not necessary that I cannot use LGPLv2 code, it's that LGPLv3 (version 3) is poison to any embedded system that may be used in a proprietary environment because it forces you to open all the firmware so you can conceivable replace/update the LGPLv3 library. Strictly speaking, this is a complete non-starter for most non-hobbyist embedded platforms. With respect to the D-Bus reference library, exactly what pieces are LGPL only? I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that you could chose one or the other license (or both) to suit your particular application.
Unfortunately, I had to move on and implement my own Lua-to-D-Bus binding for my embedded systems project. Perhaps once I get it cleaned up I'll contribute it back to the community using an MIT-style license which seems to be consistent with the rest of the Lua community. Wish I could've utilized your framework . . . it could have saved me months of effort. I guess we all are motivated differently . . . I'm not quite a fan of the whole (L)GPL family of licenses . . . Richard Stallman and the FSF rubs me the wrong way. Given the choice, I actually like the WTF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL) license the best ;-)