6

I am integrating an LGPL application to my iOS application. I am modifying the LGPL application in such a way that, I am integrating a new library to it. So the flow is like this:

Appl Code >> LGPL Library >> New Library

Do I need to make the New Library opensource?

This is what I am planning to do to meet the license requirements:

1.Make the modified LGPL application opensource (LGPL) via github fork

2.Make the other parts of the application available on demand as object files

Is this enough to meet LGPL requirements?

0

Is this enough to meet LGPL requirements?

Leaving aside staic vs. dynamic linking, it depends if your "New Library" becomes a work "based on the library" e.g. are you creating a derivative work? This is a grey area and a legal determination. My take in general is that "New Library" would become a derivative work in most cases and be subject to the LGPL terms. But YMMV. Consult a lawyer!

0

TL/DR: The New Library must be made open source.

I am modifying the LGPL application in such a way that, I am integrating a new library to it. So the flow is like this:

Appl Code >> LGPL Library >> New Library

Based on this description, the LGPL code is using/depending on/linking to the New Library. In that case, the only way that you can distribute the (modified) LGPL code is if

  • the New Library is made available under an LGPL-compatible (open-source) license
  • the New Library is a System Library (unlikely, based on the description)
  • an explicit exception is added to the LGPL license, which is only possible if you own all the copyrights on the LGPL code.

The linking clause of the LGPL (which allows it to be used in GPL-incompatible applications) is written in such a way that it does not apply to this situation, but only when the LGPL code is the target of the linking action.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.