I am using a LGPL (GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1) licensed library in my Java project I'm soon about to release. In order to solve a bug in this library I have copied a particular class from the source code, modified it, and made it a part of my project.


  • Library A is available in binary form at central nexus repo. This library A is also available as source code and licensed with LGPL 2.1. Library A contains class B that is buggy.

  • Project C built in Java and Maven depends on library A. In order to solve the bug in class B, B is copied to a new class D and stored as a part of project C source code. The bug is then fixed in D.

  • Project C's source code is about to be released and available for others.

Question: What must project C contain, license-wise?

I am looking for another answer than answers like: "In order to follow LGPL 2.1, you must implement the things listed in license LGPL 2.1".

  • Under which license do you intend to release project C? Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 19:44
  • 1
    Thats one of the things I would like to know. Is it enought to license it with the same one as the dependency (LGPL 2.1) ? In this case, and if I choose LGPL 2.1, what do I need to add to my project in terms of files, content. Do I need to comment my code in any way? Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 19:49
  • That would definitely be enough, but perhaps not necessary. You do, in any event, need to release class D as LGPL 2.1 since it's an improvement of LGPL 2.1 class B. Regarding how to apply the license: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 19:53
  • Ok. But I still don't know how to actually do this. For example, if reading some other description of the license it says this: "Give prominent notice with each copy of your work that the LGPL'd software is being used." What does this mean? Am I supposed to create a text file named prominent_notice.txt and specify that the class D is a modified copy of the class B from the library A ? This is very unclear to me. Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 19:58
  • 1
    If there's no UI then the documentation is a good place Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 20:24

1 Answer 1


The main thing to note is that the conditions for distributing modified copies are a hassle and basically amount to having to maintain your personal fork with carefully marked modification and a distribution channel for it. You want to get rid of that hassle as soon as possible, so you should try getting your bug fixes accepted upstream.

Apart from that advice, I don't think the gist of your request "what do I have to do to heed the conditions of the LPGL? Please don't ask me to read the conditions of the GPL" makes a lot of sense. You have to read through and understand a set of conditions anyway, so why not read the original rather than something regurgitated by someone whose reading is legally irrelevant?

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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