Hot answers tagged

76

First off, I Am Not A Lawyer. But I have studied many licenses and understand issues concerning them. Second, I know this is an old question, but I think it still is a point of confusion and concern. If it ISN'T a point of concern, it should be. Choosing a license is a big deal that you can't trivially change down the road, especially if multiple ...


34

Can I use them in my commercial app? It depends on what you intend to do with the software that you produce. Firstly, neither ASL1, GPL or LGPL make any restrictions on what you can use software to do inside your organization. The restrictions are all on code that is distributed outside of your organization. For GPL the restriction is that if you ...


21

I think you have to start with the intent of the LGPL 2.1 and the LGPL 3. The LGPL 2.1 was designed to be a license written largely in plain English that would give programmers guidance on what they could do with the software. It is generally clearer than the GPL 2 because of the linking safe harbor. One major uncertainty regarding the GPL is whether a ...


19

I believe you've stated the differences between the Mozilla Public License and the GNU Lesser General Public License accurately, and either may suit your needs just fine, but you are skipping over the most important difference between the two licenses: Who can make new versions? Both the MPL (section 10) and the LGPL (section 14) include in their license ...


13

wxwidgets is licensed under essentially = LGPL + static linking ...essentially the L-GPL (Library General Public Licence), with an exception stating that derived works in binary form may be distributed on the user's own terms. This is a solution that satisfies those who wish to produce GPL'ed software using wxWidgets, and also those producing proprietary ...


13

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the Mozilla Public License. It's similar to the LGPL except it allows static linking. MPL version 2 is compatible with the GPL/LGPL. Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0) vs Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL 3.0)


12

LGPL allows you to link or embed binaries without opening your own source, so long as you provide the source code for the binaries and publish any changes you make to the libraries. You must also deploy your application in a way that allows someone to replace the LGPL'd library, if they so choose. In practice, this means that you must dynamically link to ...


11

Do consult a lawyer for this, anything you get from this site (such as the answer that follows) will not free you from any liability nor guaranteed that you will be safe from prosecution. This site is most definitively NOT a proper replacement for any sort of legal advice. Now to the matter at hand, from what I understand, LGPL will allow inclusion of a ...


11

The LGPL is not a license of its own, but an extension of the GPL. It states: This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed below. The LGPL license document only contains the extensions, so to provide the ...


10

You designed your library to depend only on the LGPL version of LibRaw. That way you are following the license conditions of LibRaw. When the end-user links it against a version of that library which contains GPL code, that's their own business, not yours. You can not prevent your end-users from doing this. And doing that is not even illegal for them: The (...


10

If you take a look at Mono on GitHub, specifically the CONTRIBUTING.md file prior to its update after Microsoft bought Xamarin (and thus Mono), it states: The runtime (mono/...) is a special case. The code is dual-licensed by Xamarin under both the GNU LGPL v2 license and is also available under commercial terms. For the runtime, you should either sign an ...


9

The code moderator cannot retroactively force a new license on you for the original code that was written under the original license.


9

The answer of DougM and AER makes a fair point. MPLv2 and LGPLv3 with static exception are the same regarding the events that would trigger the copyleft. However, I think we are missing another very important difference between LGPL and MPL. When the copyleft is triggered, the copyleft applies to: for MPL: to the very exact same files of your original ...


9

The combination of GPL code and LGPL code must be licensed under the GPL. If you want to use that code, you'll have to change your license, or refrain from using it. If the other project would want their code to be used in LGPL projects, they'd have licensed it under the LGPL – I doubt they'll give you special permission. The LGPL is the same as the GPL ...


8

The "means for them to use their own modified version of the library" in this context is letting users use their own libconfig.dll instead of yours if they want. By making it dynamically linked you have fulfilled this requirement. They can just replace the file. If you had made it statically linked instead, where you don't need the libconfig.dll in order ...


8

TL;DR Yes, because the link might become invalid in 5 or 10 years. Detailed Version Yes, this is necessary. You cannot just include a link pointing to the license text. The reason is clearly stated in the GNU FAQ: Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program? Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so ...


7

If you take the source code from JasperReports and translate that literally to C++, then you are creating a derived work and you are bound by the license that the original work is released under. For a translation of a work under the LGPL license, this means that you must distribute your translation also under the LGPL (which means also providing your source ...


7

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Consult your copyright attorney if you want clarification on any of these issues. uses a statically linked class licensed under "GNU GPL v2 or any later" (modified by adding a few properties (just getters, a couple of lines)) The GPL requires that you re-release the source code for any changes you've made ...


7

Yes, you are completely correct. Providing the object files for your application is sufficient to satisfy the LGPL because it allows the user to replace the LGPL'd library with some other version if they so choose. The FSF even says so explicitly in their FAQ: For the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant version: v2, v2.1 or v3): (1) If you ...


6

The two most popular ways of going about this are: Accept only contributions under the same license as your main project (or a compatible one), and make all authors co-authors under a single unified license. This means your name and Sam's name both go in the copyright notice, or, when there are too many contributors, you reference a CONTRIBUTORS file. Have ...


6

Use of a software internally is not considered a conveyance by the GPL, so you wouldn't have to give source code to anyone. The moment you decide to distribute your software to any third party, then you'll have to follow the terms of the (L)GPL or pony up for a commercial QT license. As for static vs dynamic linking, you can static link with an (L)GPL ...


5

I am, of course, not a lawyer, so this is just my reading of the relevant licenses. Now, in the LGPL, we're talking section 4.d.1, "Use a suitable shared library mechanism", and 4.e, "Provide Installation Information". Now, 4.e says you have to provide installation info per section 6 of the GPL v3. First off, can your device be upgraded? If it can't, then ...


5

With very few exceptions, you can take your pick of proprietary and closed source applications for Linux or Android. Glibc is LGPL and is linked with practically everything. Autodesk, MathWorks, Oracle, IBM, Adobe, Google, Samsung, Amazon, Nvidia, Motorola, and many more companies incorporate and depend on LGPL and even some GPL components in their ...


5

If you are releasing your software with source code under the MIT license you should have no trouble including the other packages with it as long as you comply with the various notice requirements in the licenses. If it is important, check with the copyright holders of the libraries to be sure. If you are thinking about a binary only release you will need ...


5

For the most part, the GPL v2 and LPGL v2 and v2.1 require that, if you distribute GPL'ed or LGPL'ed code, you also make the source code available yourself. With a few exceptions, pointing to an upstream repository is not sufficient. See section 3 of the GPL v2 and section 6 of the LGPL v2.1. (Version 3 of the GPL and LGPL ease this restriction and permit ...


5

The Apache License does not place any restrictions on software that links to a plug-in or library that is distributed under the Apache license. The LGPL on the other hand has the requirement that either the LGPL library links dynamically (and can be replaced by a user) or the entire work must be released under a GPL-compatible open-source license. For the ...


5

As a rule of thumb, I'd say you should make the source available for as long as you're providing support for the software that uses it, or (preferably) as long as you can tell it's being used. It's difficult to give any solid guidelines without knowing more about the software you're producing, and what area you're in. To be on the safe side, I'd include a ...


5

The text of the LGPL is complex, as it attempts to define the term 'link', since the LGPL is intended to cover libraries. So it's a completely open legal question as to whether incorporating an LGPL executable (which is not a library) as part of a larger work is: the creation of a derivative work exempted from GPL provisions by the LGPL. the creation of a ...


5

Under normal circumstances, it can be assumed that contributions to an open-source project are made available under the same license as the project itself. In very rare cases, a contributor might explicitly state that the contribution is made under a different license than the one used for the rest of the project. In such cases the copyright situation ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible