Hot answers tagged

23

Yes, you can distribute your software without making the source code public and without giving recipients the right to make changes to your software. The LGPL license explicitly allows such usages of libraries/packages released under that license. When using an LGPL library/package like PySide2, your obligations are to allow and make it possible that ...


20

In theory, no - the copyright exists in the specific implementation of the code, not the algorithm in use. In practice, it's going to be very hard for you to forget everything you've read in the LGPL code when reimplementing them in your framework, and even harder for you to prove you didn't directly copy anything from the LGPL code. This is why "clean ...


17

As the owner of the copyright, you can do what you want with your code. It is others who are bound by the licence(s) under which you distribute the code, because they accept those licences when they receive the code (strictly, when they do something for which they have no permission if they don't accept the licence). You yourself can do what you like with ...


17

You've already got the answer that LGPL libraries can be used in commercial software. So far, so good. There's more to this than meets the eye, though. The thing is, PySide2 is for using the Qt framework with Python programs. Besides the LGPL license for PySide2, you'll have to make sure that you comply with the Qt licensing terms. The Qt licensing ...


17

Yes you can create your own license that delegates to the GPL/LGPL as appropriate. However, this will not work as intended. The Free Software / Open Source (FOSS) community thinks that discriminating by use case or by user is not a good thing to do. For example, the Free Software Definition starts with The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any ...


16

This is a legitimate issue that's come up various times in the past on various open source projects. The way it's typically handled is by not accepting external contributions into your repository unless they sign an agreement either transferring their copyright interest to you or, at the very least, explicitly waiving their right to disagree with your ...


14

We have run into this problem in libpng. We addressed it by putting any contributions that insist on keeping their own copyright, or are under a different open source license, into a "contrib" directory, which has its own README.txt: This "contrib" directory contains contributions which are not necessarily under the libpng license, although all are ...


13

I want to provide a commercial license for somebody who is willing to pay on top of open source one (LGPL allows it, right?) As a copyright holder you always have the option to dual license your works under any licenses you choose, including proprietary/commercial licenses. If you want to do so with others' contributions then you would be wise to get them ...


13

I do not think you are reading the compatibility table correctly. When I look at the intersection of I want to copy code under GPLv2 and I want to licence my code under LGPLv2.1 I see a box that says OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only. I read that as saying that you can write some code which you release under the LGPLv2.1, but that if you later combine it ...


11

I assume by "commercial project" you mean that you do not wish to disclose the source code for the product you are developing. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect, as it is the basis of this answer. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. The LGPL 2.1, which appears to be the license of TinyMCE, is actually more permissive than the ...


11

Compliance stuff isn't a nice-to-have feature. The LGPL provides no exceptions for beta releases. However, the LGPL is technology-neutral and does not directly require you to implement a GUI. You must reasonable notices about the open source components that you use. How to do this depends on the nature of your software. For a graphical application: Moving ...


9

The combination of conditions you set don't meet the Open Source Definition as set by the OSI. From the Annotated Open Source Definition: Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Rationale: The mere ability to read ...


9

Running an application on a server is never considered distribution, and you're not bound by the terms of the LGPL for distribution. Please do note that running javascript in the browser does mean distribution. I'm not familiar with the framework, so I don't know if that's relevant here. The only widely used open source license which puts obligations on ...


9

The license terms of the LGPL license effectively distinguish two different models: You make changes to the LGPL code, or you copy portions of the LGPL licensed code into your own project. In this case, the license requires you to make your code available under the LGPL or GPL license as a library that can be used by other programs. You use the LGPL ...


9

Your code is your own, you can use it in closed products while giving away copies under e.g. LGPL. Just be clear that if I take your code and modify it under LGPL (e.g. to fix bugs) you are not allowed to take my changes (under LGPL) and use it in the closed product. You might ask everybody to write over their rights to their changes to you, but that'd very ...


9

I asked FSF the same question. This is the FSF's answer: Please see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonFreeTools I hope this is of help. I asked again: For example, a proprietary UNIX includes a proprietary compiler. I can redistribute the executable of someone's LGPL program without redistributing the proprietary compiler because ...


9

However I think only AGPL-3.0 requires build/install instructions according to the following links.[...] [and not the LGPL-2.1] Am I right? Nope. These links are not the license proper. Just commentaries about it (and based on what I can see incomplete commentaries). You should rely on the license text instead. Our legal team claims we should provide ...


8

This answer was originally posted by Josh Kelley at StackOverflow (second link might be visible to 10k+ only), but was removed there due to being off-topic. It has been preserved here in light of this Meta StackOverflow request. Linking has a specific meaning in computer programming. You're not linking GPL'ed or LGPL'ed code at all, you're only spawning a ...


8

First of all, you may want to discuss GPL compliance with your company's legal counsel and develop a clear strategy for dealing with GPL code. Complying with the GPL is not necessarily difficult, but it can place surprising obligations on you. The intention of the GPL is effectively an end user protection effort, so that end users of the GPL-covered ...


8

Since your code is derived from the LGPLv3 code you are bound by that license – it is a copyleft license like the GPLv3, just with a linking exception. You do not have the right to license this code under the Apache 2 license. While Apache 2 and LGPLv3 are compatible, license compatibility is a one-way street: you can include Apache 2 licensed code in a ...


8

I emailed Mr. Richard Stallman, the primary author of the GPL, for his opinion on this issue. I received the following reply: I studied this question for a while. It is clear that that matter of distribution violates GPLv3 overall. However, I couldn't be sure what courts might say. To work out the answer would require a very capable lawyer.


8

I have no intention of trying to argue with rms about this (or any other GPL-related) issue. But I think there's an interesting difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 that gives rise to a new line of approach to the issue. The previous issue with Apple was, as the OP notes, GPLv2-specific. GPLv2's handling of additional obligations being placed on ...


8

No, you are misinterpreting the table. The top-left entry you've highlighted ("I want to copy code under GPL v2 only" / "I want to license my code under LGPL v2 only") says that if you are the copyright holder of some code which you which to release under the LGPL v2 only, then you can copy some GPL v2 code and distribute the binaries - ...


7

There are two separate kinds of derived works you can create from an LGPL-licensed work: a combined work that includes/uses the LGPL library (per section 4, "Combined Works") a modification of the LGPL library itself (per section 2, "Conveying Modified Versions") To qualify as a "Combined Work", your changes cannot be "...


7

Under the LGPL, running the software under a web server of any sort does not qualify as distribution. As noted in Martijn's answer, passing JavaScript and any markup to create the webpage does qualify as distribution. Here's a small flow chart that might help: If your code running on the server is LGPL, this does not count as distribution. However, if ...


7

The LGPL and GPL + the Classpath exception share the property that if you link code under these terms into your program, the resulting derivative work does not have to be made available as free software. Instead you can copy and distribute the resulting binary executable under terms of your choice. This means that the source code does not have to be ...


7

The GPL is already an open source license. But if you relicense a project (and a license change from GPL to LGPL needs the permission of all contributors, I assume that this is given) does not change the license on the old code. So the previous code is still available under the GPL, nothing changes in that regard.


7

Yes you are allowed to do so. Qt Designer is available under not just GPL but "GPLv3 with The Qt Company GPL Exception 1.0" Here is the exception: The Qt Company GPL Exception 1.0 Exception 1: As a special exception you may create a larger work which contains the output of this application and distribute that work under terms of your choice,...


7

Note: I'm not a license expert. The following answer is based on general knowledge of the GPL and LGPL and the LGPL text as found here. The section of the license provided in the question refers to works that don't contain derivatives of the LGPL library. For example, if I made a sorting library and you made an application for creating lists by reading file ...


7

From what you've written, I'm not entirely clear about the problem. I'm going to assume that you're the sole rightsholder in {data,domain,app,device}.gradle (forgive the regexp) and that data.gradle, though written entirely by you, is linked to a third-party AGPLv3 library. Thus {domain,app,device}.gradle are unconstrained with respect to licence, but data....


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