Moving Amber's license to LGPL

[Ph0enixKM]

There was a discussion about changing the license of Amber's compiler to something that will allow distributing it on places like App Store / Google Play.

I'd like to propose moving Amber's license from GPLv3 to LGPL. LGPL enables developers to use Amber compiler as a dependency of their project and does not enforce it to be licensed under LGPL (like GPL does) unless the compiler source code is modified, in which case it should be open sourced and the developer is obligated to contribute to the amber-lang's Amber project itself.

My main motive is that I want to create an app for iOS/iPadOS that can SSH into a server and run Amber code. The app would contain an editor in which user can write and compile an amber script that could be executed.

I don't want to close-source the project at all. All I want is to let it be more accessible on other platforms like iOS for example.

[lens0021]

Changing license requires the agreements of all authors in my sense. This is impossible in many situations, but at least the maintainer should attempt it by contacting them.

[b1ek]

can we even do that? im not sure if GPL even allows changing the license of the original project by the original author(s)

[Ph0enixKM]

Yes we can if all other contributors agree to it. Otherwise we'd have to pull back the commits and write them separately which is a bit of a pain in the ass but yeah

[Mte90]

It is something that can't be rushed at all.

How other project publish GPL stuff on those store? Because a lot of projects like VLC don't change the license just for them.
So until an analysis about it I don't allow the relicense of my code.

[lens0021]

WMF who maintains MediaWiki and Wikipedia generally uses GPLv2, but its iOS app is MIT and android app is Apache, I have not found why yet.

[Mte90]

I guess that the big problem is apple and not play store.
I am wondering how all the various projects that embed oss project in app store handle that, like maybe the an app using a oss project with GPL is just licensed as MIT so can use GPL stuff.

That open to the second point, we need to be published on app store as https://github.com/amber-lang/amber/ ?
Because GCC is licensed as GPLv3, while PHP/Python/Nodejs with BSD licenses.

https://blog.lazerwalker.com/cortado/2015/07/05/open-source-licenses.html

[Ph0enixKM]

@Mte90 I just read this article and here are my take aways

• It's virtually impossible to release any GPLv3 app to the app store
• LGPL is okay (I checked on Qt and it's licensed under LGPL which can be shipped to the App Store)

releasing your iOS library under a copyleft license all but ensures that almost nobody will use it2. Perhaps worth doing as a political statement, sure, but not productive if your goal is to put something out there for others to use.

Abstracting from the app store itself... I started building Amber with the idea that it would be a very helpful tool capable of integrating with many other systems and platforms (e.g., CI or automation tools based on this language). I want companies to adopt Amber and help us grow. The more users we have, the more feedback and ideas we’ll receive to improve the language. However, I don’t want companies to take advantage of the fact that we’re building this for free—that’s why GPL seems to be the best choice. LGPL extends this by allowing people to create projects that use Amber while keeping their own licenses, unless they modify Amber itself. In that case, they must open-source their modifications (under LGPL) and contribute the changes back to us. I think that it would be healthy for this project if developers integrate Amber compiler (as a dependency) in their proprietary software as well.

That open to the second point, we need to be published on app store as https://github.com/amber-lang/amber/ ?

Not necessarily... I can publish the app under my name. The problem is that it will be rejected.

[Ph0enixKM]

@Mte90 I just checked that creator of PPSSPP (the PSP emulator) released his app under GPL2 to the App Store, so that could work fine as well if LGPL is in your taste is worse in a way

[Mte90]

I am fine for the LGPL :-)