Machine Learning Library for C++

Post by ddfu » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 2:49 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #33

kruhft wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people believe in software freedom more than you do.

Some people define "freedom" with 10 pages of restrictions of which the exact interpretation is continuously debated years after release. Other people consider that the opposite of freedom.

Some wouldn't mind their open-source software integrated into high-frequency trading systems and military munitions, and others either object on moral terms or wish to be paid fairly for such lucrative use.

Do you think programmers shouldn't have the choice to decide whether their software may be used to kill people or cause the next flash crash? GPLv3 allows programmers to share their software while making sure big corporations and defense contractors steer clear.

Post by to3m » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 4:45 PM UTC

eps wrote: post #49

to3m wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LPGL isn't vastly better than the GPL as it makes it difficult to link statically and/or release for closed platforms. Its advocates would probably see these as plus points, but I'm not sure that they're going to increase uptake.

LGPL basically means that if I modify the libary code, I should open source the changes, but I can build derived products (in GPL sense) from an unchanged lib as much as I want. This static vs dynamic linking debate is a silly pendantry, enforcing which doesn't contribute anything to the GNU's goals or vision. It's really disappointing to see people time on this. If you want to pursue justice - go after the GPL viola…

Requiring the programmers to keep their changes to the library open is one aspect of keeping the software free; requiring that the end user be able to replace the library with a different one is another, and one that the FSF seems keen on maintaining. Personally, I agree that wider-spread usage of the libraries would be better than the current rather doctrinaire stance - but I assume the FSF sees the LGPL's current emphasis on end-user freedom as contributing more to the GNU goals than wider-spread usage of the libraries would.

In the meantime, there's always the MIT licence.

Re: Machine Learning Library for C++

Re: Machine Learning Library for C++