Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Stanimir M. <sta...@zo...>]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Artyom Beilis <art...@gm...> wrote:
>  >>> Artyom, is it time to reconsider more permissive license?
>>>> [...]
>>>> The license of CppCMS that I use is LGPL and I had to do a lot of
>>>> twists to use it without static linkage. Even that, current state of
>>>> my setup is not satisfying.
>>>
>>> First of all is it internal release or you deliver to the SW to clients?
>>>
>> Almost all are internal, but I don't know what "SW" abbreviates to.
>> Maybe "Service Website"?
>
> SW - software
>

I had to keep it simple and not search for urban dictionary :)

>> There is one app I made for clients (since I do outsourcing) that I
>> had to make it use dynamic linkage, because I think that the LGPL
>> requires it.
>> The app and source code is all theirs and not mine. It is a document
>> archival app. They sell the service and storage of the documents to
>> their clients.
>> Is that SW that you are talking about?
>>
>> I might have even violated your license in some way? :(
>> I had to ask that question before I start using CppCMS for this assignment.
>>
>
> You distribute your application to client with the source code
> so your client can build it - no need for dynamic linking
> as you provide means to modify CppCMS... no problems.
>
> If your client provides web service without actually delivering
> the bundle to his clients - keeping the software on his own
> server - no problem as well.
>
> If your client gives the software  to his clients without giving
> source code or means to build it than he needs to
> provide dynamic linking protecting the freedom to modify CppCMS.
>
I fit exactly in the previous two scenarios. This one will be pointed
immediately to my clients in case they decide to sell the software.
>
>> Maybe my confusion with all those licenses comes from the missing
>> understanding of the limitations they pursue and why!
>
> There is great GPL FAQ... it answers most of stuff.
>
I read it long ago, but without concrete examples it was very
difficult to relate to my questions.

>> >From the text of LGPL is clear that dynamic linkage is allowed and now
>> you say that there is a way to use it even with a static one.
>>
> technically you can even distribute compiled objects ".o" files and means
> to link with static CppCMS .a ... as long as you give the freedom to modify
> CppCMS library - of course it isn't really feasable.
>
> The "test" isn't I need to link dynamically but can I modify CppCMS library.
>

This explanation is the one I was looking for. Thank you!

>>> IMHO most of users somewhat afraid of going to quite complex code
>>> and I'm not sure CppCMS has enough buzz around it to convert the
>>> quantity of users to quality of contributions.
>>>
>> In my own experience, contributions are a bit scary because you are
>> supposed to contribute fully functional feature.
>> An example applicable to CppCMS is that I made a bazel build for it's
>> trunk (see https://bazel.build), but I didn't consider contributing it
>> yet, because it is not fully and generally working solution.
>>
>> This reminds me of why github could be preferred and pushed by so many
>> people. It is easier to contribute even with half baked solutions that
>> get better over longer period of time.
>>
>
> It depends, for example Lee Elenbaas contributed a great patch
> for templates compiler, it come without tests and I needed to
> do some small fixes - but it was important and I accepted it
> gladly.
>
> So it isn't black and white - but yes  I do want complete solutions.
>
>>> So I consider some kind of exception of typical use case of LGPL
>>> library - i.e. allow static linking. (like wxWindows exception)
>>>
>> I just read more for wxWindows exception. It seams the exception is
>> only when you deliver/destribute the binary form of the product.
>> Is this applicable for web framework library at all?
>>
>> After all wxWindows is cross plafrom GUI library that is supposed to
>> be distributed as part of a desktop application, while the web
>> apps/sites are hosted services.
>>
>
> Yes it is applicable and I explain why.
>
> If you build your own web service/site, host it on your servers - do
> don't need to
> link dynamically or even release changes you made in CppCMS
> because you don't distribute your software.
>
> However if you distribute some software bundle with web service based
> on CppCMS you need to link dynamically/provide means for modification.
>
> More than that - if you distribute a product - lets say some raspberry pi
> or some product - lets say a robot with embedded web interface based
> on CppCMS than you need not only link dynamically but also provide
> the **access** to the device so you can modify the dll/so, on the device
> itself.
>
> This is usually when CppCMS users opt for commercial license :-)

It is all clear now for me. Thanks a lot.

>
> Artyom
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
> Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
> Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
> Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
> http://sdm.link/telerik
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users