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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


16

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 ...


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

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 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 ...


10

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 ...


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

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 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

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

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 ...


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

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

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

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 ...


7

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 ...


7

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.


6

I want to provide a commercial license for somebody who is willing to pay on top of open source one (LGPL allows it, right?) None of the FLOSS licenses are exclusive licenses. This means that as long as you're the sole owner of the project's copyright, you're free to dual-license it under some FLOSS license (including LGPL), and a commercial license. I ...


6

If your "internal projects" are not being released outside of your organization, then you should be fine. Your modifications do fall under the LGPL, but if you aren't releasing your modified library in binary form to the general public, there's no one in the general public that has the right to request to see your library's source code.


6

The source code repository clarifies the author and copyright holder of the software. This author is also the owner of the website that distributes this software according to a dual license principle. As he is the owner of this software, he can licenses it with the terms and conditions that he wants (as long as he doesn't infringe copyrights of others). ...


6

Under the normal circumstances that your question present (i.e. dynamic linking to a library assumed to exist on the user's system and thus not distributed with the program) the following part of the license text will save the day for any program using glibc: A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work ...


6

Can I include a library licenced under LGPL 2.1 in an MIT-licenced project without any legal problems? Yes. Your only LGPL requirements apply to the LGPL library and not to your MIT-licensed code... Since it's not a compiled language, I would provide the full untouched source code of the library (including the copyright notice) in a sub-directory of my ...


6

IANAL/IANYL. That said, it seems to me that yes, you may, provided you conform to the GNU LGPL's obligations. In brief those seem to me to be That you license the modified LGPL work under LGPL (or GPL3, but that would interfere with your desire to distribute the rest of the work under an MIT licence) That you include copies of the GPL and the LGPL with ...


6

IANAL/IANYL. Based on what you've said about libraries, what you have there is not, most likely, "a package of programs"; it's one big program that comes in several parts. As such, and given that the parts that aren't yours are under some version of the GPL, then if you choose to distribute this program, you must do so entirely under the same version of ...


6

I want the app to be closed source and as hard as reasonably possible to reverse engineer. The first part of this request is easy to satisfy. The LGPL expressly makes the second part to some degree impossible. Qt hosts a practical summary of the LGPL's requirements. I won't repeat the entire summary here (definitely read it!), but the first three items are ...


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