[License] Consider change license to MIT license

[lc-soft]

Some developer don't like GPL license, and their project source code is not very useful to me, so I will consider change license to MIT in 1.0.0 stable version.

[Raymonf]

Yes, please!

This project looks really cool but I don't really want to touch GPLv2 code because of the source code clause.

[mqudsi]

Thank you. Libraries really should always use MIT/BSD/LGPL to boost adoption.

[aggsol]

I vote for sticking to GPL even though their code is not useful to you it might be useful to somebody else using LCUI. Also the GPL is not for "usefulness" but to share knowledge. With LGPL you give people and companies to rely on LCUI and create commercial products without giving back.

Please have a read from GNU on why not to use LGPL on new libraries.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.zh-cn.html

Thank you for your great work!

[baybal]

Consider v3 or v3l

Then, you can use code from qt and gtk

[baybal]

Other than for projects that are too big to change license V2 codebase is pretty much dead

[codecat]

Ah damn. I wanted to use this but didn't realize it was GPL'd. Would much prefer an MIT license!

[Raymonf]

@aggsol I understand where you're coming from, but in that case most people will just not use the library. That group includes me.

We're totally fine with not using this, but we'd love to. That's all.

[lieff]

+1 for more permissive license.

[lc-soft]

@aggsol

Yes, I think so before open this project source, I just hope someone can tell me how to write code and make this project better. But what I can not understand is that with so many GUI libraries can be use, why use this project?

Many people are selfish, do not want to open source their own projects, do not like the GPL license, So the GPL library will not be formally used in their own projects, which also led to a chain reaction:

1. nobody used this project
2. nobody found this project bugs
3. nobody study source code to fix bug
4. nobody share this bug's patch
5. This project will not be developed speed

So, I think the switch to LGPL license might solve the problem.

But if I switch to another license, may be will bring more users, these users will bring more needs, and my free time is limited, I will certainly not totally agree with their needs, I guess some bad attitude users are dissatisfied, and then do some unpleasant things, just as this developer's article said.

Think carefully, use what license has little effect on me, the number of users and the number of stars is just a number, the benefits they bring to me are just making it easier for me to find new jobs.

[Raymonf]

That being said...

@lc-soft Is lc-ui/LCUI-Guide up to date? I'd like to translate it since we're missing an English version.

[baybal]

@lc-soft the bigger issue is the version. You can't use (L)GPL V2 code in a (L)GPL V3 project, and vice versa. And GPL V2 codebase is getting vanishingly small these days with exception of projects that stuck with V2 because of their size.

So, even if I will release my software under the same license as LCUI, I will not be able to use any of popular third party libraries, and that is a showstopper. Why would I be using LCUI if I can't use any other third party library with it.

[aggsol]

In this cas LGPL might be a good choice for @lc-soft .

@baybal If you just link to LCUI what most people will do you can use ANY compatible license for your project. If v2 or v2 is no matter then.

[baybal]

@aggsol what you are saying is wrong. Linking to a library invariably creates a derived work as per GPL's language. That way your binary turns into GPLV2 code which can't use v3 libs

[codecat]

@baybal What about with LGPL though?