On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 04:30:28PM +0100, Ján Tomko wrote: > On a Monday in 2022, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:28:29AM +0100, Wim de With wrote: > > Licensing is a pretty fun minefield :) > > > > For example, even though libvirt-rs itself would be statically linked > > into any application that uses it, by virtue of it being a wrapper > > around the C library you'd still end up dynamically linking against > > that. > > > > I tend to agree that language bindings should follow the rest of the > > language ecosystem in terms of licensing, and for libvirt-rs > > specifically that would probably mean MIT. Perhaps we should consider > > looking into relicensing the project? > > Alternatively, stay away from "ecosystems" that are not compatible with > copyleft. libvirt itself is LGPL. Proprietary applications can link against it. It's also where all the actual logic lives. Language bindings are supposed to be "uninteresting" in that for the most part they just convert inputs and outputs between the formats understood by the two runtimes, so using a fairly liberal license for them doesn't seem like a big deal to me. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
