Hot answers tagged

16

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 ...


15

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 ...


12

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 ...


11

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 ...


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

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 ...


8

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 ...


8

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 ...


8

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 ...


8

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 ...


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

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 "based on" the library, but rather ...


7

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 ...


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 ...


6

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 ...


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. 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

It is true that copyleft requirements can only apply to material that is within the same copyrighted work as the copyleft-licensed material. If you employ a client-server model, it is quite likely that the client and server will be separate works. It may be possible to bungle this separation such that the two pieces remain one work but it's unlikely to ...


6

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 ...


5

If all the code is yours, then you can do anything that you would like with it. You can change the license, or even remove the license altogether. You don't have to keep a version licensed under the LGPL. If all the code is yours, you can do anything with it. Including dual-licensing similar to Qt. But if some of that code is not yours, then you've got a ...


5

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 ...


5

The answer to your question turns on that hardy perennial favorite dilemma: aggregation versus derivation. The 'intermediate-ness' of the intermediate library doesn't matter. The reason it doesn't matter is that the question is asked about the work, as a whole. I do not believe that anyone thinks that the precise order and arrangement of the call graph is ...


5

Recording footage of gameplay and releasing it is quite a grey area. For example, Nintendo used YouTube's copyright enforcement system to claim advertisement revenue from people who recorded videos of their games and Sega used DMCA takedown notices to remove such videos completely. But these only went through YouTube's internal systems of handling copyright ...


5

The LGPL v2.1 is specifically designed for libraries; in particular, it allows distribution of modified versions of the library only in certain circumstances (section 2), including The modified work must itself be a software library. However, you can distribute your library and its associated programs under the LGPL, because section 3 of the LGPL allows ...


5

There is no such provision to provide references when using commercially in the LGPL 2 or 3 and adding such provision may be contradicting the license terms. There are provisions for attribution and credit though that are rather extensive and these may likely be more than good enough for you. I will only reference the newer LGPL 3.0 and focus only on the ...


5

The GPL FAQ says: If you statically link against an LGPL'd library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application. It sounds like you already understand this, but you are concerned specifically about the user's ability to "relink the ...


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