End of may 2017 I got an e-mail from "Open Source at Apple", stating:
We have some engineers at Apple who were impressed by the Structures_Graph package:
http://pear.php.net/package/Structures_Graph/
The newest version appears to be under an LGPLv3+ license. Would you consider allowing Apple to use this open source code under LGPLv2.1 (or an alternative permissive license) rather than LGPLv3? Thanks!
That "impressed" is probably standard to make people feel important
and nudge them towards a
oh my, the all-knowing apple corp likes my
code! I should give it to them!
mindset.
Fact is that Structures_Graph is used in the PEAR installer, which is shipped as part of OSX's PHP packages. Apple simply wanted to continue their current setup without changing anything.
I like the LGPLv3, so I asked:
What exactly is the problem you're facing with the code being LGPLv3+?
Two days later a honest reply:
Some of the concerns center around the LGPLv3+’s express and broad patent grant and its requirement to provide, under certain circumstances, the "installation information” (potentially items like the key used to sign code) for user products that include the Structures_Graph code.
If providing the Structures_Graph code under its former LGPLv2 license is not a viable alternative, is a commercial (paid for) license available?
I had several options now:
- Invest some time to change the license back to LGPLv2 to please one of the biggest companies on earth, and get nothing in return.
- Request $yearlySalary from Apple for a commercial license and keeping the money to myself, ignoring the people that actually wrote that code years ago.
- Tell $bigcorp to either play by the rules or remove the software from the OS.
I chose option three, not only because RMS would have cried otherwise:
I'll keep the license of the package as it is, LGPLv3+. If you cannot accept that I guess then you have to drop the PEAR installer.
I did not get a reply. We'll have to see what the outcome of this will be.