libnfs any chance to have a more premissive licensing terms?

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 9:05 PM rahmanih @.***> wrote:

Hi, I'm planning to use the libnfs on MCU based product, but the LGPLv2.1 is not really adequate for me as the libnfs is going to be statically linked on my final binary.

Is it possible to have BSD license for the libnfs library itself?

Hi,

No. I am not going to change the licence for the upstream version. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think there is any difference between statically or dynamically linked libraries when it comes to LGPLv2.1. There may be a difference in LGPLv3 but I am not a lawyer and can not advice on this.

If you are concerned and want legal advice I can suggest contacting SFLC and ask them to review your use case and give advice.

Optionally, I could offer a specific fork/licence of the library for your company/project that is under a different licence but the main upstream repository will remain LGPL.

regards ronnie sahlberg

thanks in advance.

haithem.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sahlberg/libnfs/issues/359, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADY3EETO4BHU2DYC44MQEDUCW7WFANCNFSM5EKHBOCQ . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

1

Answered Sep 24 '21 at 09:17

sahlberg