Skip to main content
45 votes
Accepted

If I can't provide GPL source because a supplier did not provide it, am I at fault?

To add a little to planetmaker's excellent answer: I'm not entirely sure what loophole you think you've discovered, but assuming your contention is that you're released from your obligation to ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 48.9k
41 votes
Accepted

Can I make my own license?

Don't do this. We already have an excellent Q&A on why you shouldn't use a crayon licence, and I strongly recommend you read it. You can achieve most of what you want with existing licences, and ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 48.9k
33 votes
Accepted

Contributor asking to remove their contributions

it didn’t make it clear for this situation whether the contributor had copyright over their work That's because it doesn't need to be made clear - contributors always own the copyright on their work, ...
Philip Kendall's user avatar
31 votes

Does license prohibition of illicit / malicious use or modification clash with GPL's freedom to modify?

Simply put, a requirement to seek outside approval in order to make or deploy changes is not GPL-compatible, nor is it even a requirement within the definitions of free and open-source software. Part ...
apsillers's user avatar
  • 36.1k
29 votes

If I can't provide GPL source because a supplier did not provide it, am I at fault?

That's a legal question, not an open-source one; the answer depends on jurisdiction and on how you fight legal battles. However in short, you are both, victim and offender. You distribute the software,...
planetmaker's user avatar
  • 11.1k
26 votes

Does license prohibition of illicit / malicious use or modification clash with GPL's freedom to modify?

You are approaching this the wrong way. First, you are assuming any wish to modify the software will be malicious, while in reality people will want to make all kinds of changes you hadn't anticipated ...
Ángel's user avatar
  • 781
25 votes
Accepted

Do I Need to Publish my Source Code because of LGPL?

7-zip is principally published under LGPLv2+, with an additional restriction relating to reimplementing the rar algorithm. As I read it, this additional restriction comes nowhere near affecting your ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 48.9k
23 votes

Can I sell a proprietary software with an LGPL library bundled along with it, without making my source code public?

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 ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
20 votes

Extracting business logic from a LGPL v3 project and rewriting my own, is my work considered derivative?

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 ...
Philip Kendall's user avatar
19 votes
Accepted

Can I sell a proprietary software with an LGPL library bundled along with it, without making my source code public?

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 ...
JRE's user avatar
  • 306
17 votes
Accepted

Own LGPL code in proprietorial project

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 ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 48.9k
17 votes
Accepted

Can I have a GPL-compatible license that change by use?

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 ...
amon's user avatar
  • 38.9k
17 votes
Accepted

Can the GNU LGPL be removed from a piece of software?

Interesting one. Assuming the publisher is the sole rightsholder, yes, they are perfectly free to relicense the work; however, they can't revoke the licence on existing copies that are already out ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 48.9k
16 votes
Accepted

How to prevent contributors from claiming copyright on my LGPL-released software?

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 ...
Mason Wheeler's user avatar
15 votes

If I can't provide GPL source because a supplier did not provide it, am I at fault?

Here's a comprehensive answer from https://copyleft.org with some added emphasis: With ever-increasing frequency, software development (particularly for embedded devices) is outsourced to third ...
lofidevops's user avatar
  • 1,990
15 votes
Accepted

PySimpleGUI, until now, has been distributed under the GPLV3, but just became a subscription model. How does that work?

Isn't the prior version still FOSS? Licences do not inhere in software, but instead their obligations attach to the recipient through the act of conveyance. If you received a copy of this software ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 48.9k
14 votes

How to prevent contributors from claiming copyright on my LGPL-released software?

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" ...
Glenn Randers-Pehrson's user avatar
14 votes

Is Apple allowed to distribute GPLv3-licensed software through its iOS App Store?

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 ...
Tenders McChiken's user avatar
13 votes
Accepted

Can GPLv2 licensed software be re-published under LGPLv2.1?

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 ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 48.9k
12 votes
Accepted

Is Apple allowed to distribute GPLv3-licensed software through its iOS App Store?

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 ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 48.9k
12 votes

Can I make my own license?

If you are an Operating System Developer, you can also choose Apache. I'm an operating system developer. If I use your software, I will choose Apache. The problem is that one of the rights that I ...
David Schwartz's user avatar
11 votes

Bypass LGPL license using wrapper library

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 ...
airfishey's user avatar
  • 1,904
11 votes

LGPL obligations implementation in beta versions

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 ...
amon's user avatar
  • 38.9k
11 votes

Does license prohibition of illicit / malicious use or modification clash with GPL's freedom to modify?

Modifications are still possible, as long as they go through the official channel and are verified to be fully compliant by the community. This would make the software definitely not open source as ...
Philip Kendall's user avatar
10 votes

Do I need to provide build/install instructions for LGPL-2.1 or AGPL-3.0 licensed libraries?

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 ...
Philippe Ombredanne's user avatar
10 votes
Accepted

GPL for Embedded

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 ...
amon's user avatar
  • 38.9k
10 votes

Can I use (statically or dynamically linked) mingw-w64 runtime libraries for commercial purposes?

You can create and distribute proprietary software using most libraries that ship with mingw. In general, if you are using a library (which includes libstdc++, libgcc and libwinpthread in your ...
D. SM's user avatar
  • 1,876
10 votes
Accepted

Is LGPLv3 against tivoization? Or only GPLv3?

The LGPLv3 license is an extension of the GPLv3 license that grants certain additional permissions (like using the code together with proprietary, undisclosed code). The clause 4e you quoted just ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
10 votes

Does license prohibition of illicit / malicious use or modification clash with GPL's freedom to modify?

If I received GPL licensed software and pass it to someone else, that is copyright infringement unless I follow the GPL license conditions. Telling the receiver they cannot use the software for ...
gnasher729's user avatar
  • 1,265
10 votes
Accepted

Compliance with LGPL for a Locked STM32 in a Commercial Product?

The LGPLv2.1 has a "loophole" that makes it possible to use an LGPLv2.1 library in your situation. The "loophole" is that, while customers must be able to build their own copy of ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar

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