LGPL + GraalVM clarification?

[Lilianne-Blaze]

Could you please clarify if it's allowed to use Lanterna in non-LGPL (commercial closed-source) GraalVM projects? The obvious answer seems it would be impossible because GraalVM uses static (as opposed to dynamic in 'normal' Java) linking?

I don't suppose there are any chances of dual-licensing with something more permissive like MIT or Apache?

Alternatively, if a project needs to be a two-parter anyway (Windows service - which needs to run as admin and can't have gui - plus a simple gui basically with tray icon and a console), would it be ok to open source only the gui part, after making it more generic so it's suitable for use with other projects?

[mabe02]

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure what restrictions LGPL puts on running things in GraalVM. Personally I don't mind, obviously :)

At one point I was looking into re-licensing the library as Apache, but it turns out that I would need to reach out to every single contributor and get their approval, so I gave up.

[davydotcom]

Hello,

Firstly thanks for this library! I too was wondering about the same license use case and was wondering if maybe an issue could be made allowing past contributors to accept a change to Apache/MIT as I have seen something along these lines on other projects.

[MartyIX]

@davydotcom I think it's worth trying. :)