Hot answers tagged

7

Indeed, the default license is “all rights reserved”. On the other hand, facts are not copyrightable. If any reasonable representation of these facts would result in the essentially same header file, there is an argument that there is nothing copyrightable in the header file (compare the US merger doctrine concept, though there's similar case law in the EU). ...


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....


5

Since it is only for decoding This is irrelevant Is it ok to use this library with closed source software (I guess LGPL allows it)? LGPL and GPL don't forbid any usage, so clearly yes. Those licenses impose restrictions for the distribution of software, not for their usage, Is there any codec licensing issue (x264 and x265 are disabled)? You should ...


5

There doesn't seem to be a copyright violation here. The code was pretty clearly released under the LGPL, and open source licenses are (almost certainly) irrevocable; it doesn't matter that the patch was never accepted, the code was still released under the LGPL, so as long as the appropriate copyright notices are being maintained (and it seems like they are)...


5

but it would require the user to kind of disassemble the product and potentially damage the casing to do that. As far as the LGPL is concerned, if you can have a fully functioning device after updating the Qt libraries, then it doesn't matter to what degree the user needed to damage the device to gain access. However, there might be other requirements, like ...


5

Build scripts are part of the software. More precisely, build scripts are part of the Corresponding Machine-Readable Source Code as defined by the LGPL 2.1 (emphasis mine): "Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For a library, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it ...


4

As the Makefile is not a part of the software you are creating, but only a script used in the build process, the two are separate works as far a copyright is concerned. With separate works, the license of one does not affect the license on the other. This means that you can distribute your code under the MIT license and at the same time the Makefile under ...


4

Is my interpretation correct and am I really not allowed to link any closed-source library which does not fulfill the system library exception to a GPL software, if I am conveying a GPL software of someone else, which I only modified? Is that true, even if the closed-source, non-system DLL is zero-cost and either freely downloadable by the user or already ...


4

The LGPL ensures that the library will always remain under the LGPL. Since you are not the sole copyright holder, you cannot relicense the library under a different license. However, this does not prevent linking the LGPL-covered library with a proprietary library, which is then sold. It is also permissible to bundle the LGPL library with the proprietary ...


4

There's two fundamentally different takes on open source licenses: a) the permissive ones like MIT, Apache etc which - roughly speaking - don't care what happens to their sources as long as the credits are maintained and communicated. b) And there's the more strictly open source licenses, the copy-left licenses, which want to make sure that any derivative ...


4

This answer is predicated on the assumption that dynamic linking does make a derivative work for copyright purposes, which is not a settled issue (pro, contra). That said, in my opinion, you may not do this. Any additional code used in a GPLv2 program falls under GPLv2 s2b, which says that You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in ...


4

Nothing in the GPL or LGPL, whether version 2 or 3, requires you to offer object files of any kind whatsoever. Instead, both versions of both licenses impose conditions on distributing object files, under the assumption that you already wanted to distribute object files in the first place. When distributing object files, you are expected to provide the ...


4

The LGPL Version 3 uses the GPL-3.0 Additional Permissions mechanism to add a linking exception to the GPL. The LGPL-3.0 is not a standalone license, but rather a standardized GPL exception. Therefore, yes, any project under the LGPL-3.0 must include the GPL license text as well. However, earlier LGPL versions are standalone licenses and only require a copy ...


4

IANAL. Section 4, subsection D of the LGPL-3 requires (emphasis mine): d) Do one of the following: Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version ...


4

I think you've interpreted the requirements correctly. When you consider the intent of LGPL, it makes sense: users should have the freedom to replace the library with a better implementation. Without the means to transfer the improved implementation to the device, then they would not have this freedom, so the LGPL really needs to mandate it. Obviously, it's ...


4

The third option I'm currently considering is to ship a driver which statically links to libusb, but also allows users to dynamically load their own build of libusb at runtime via an environment variable. This would make deployment easy and would give users the option of using their own build of libusb, but would it comply with LGPL? From a licensing ...


3

Yes, you can. If you statically link to the Cygwin library, the linking exception allows you to just distribute your application without consideration for the fact that you use Cygwin. If you dynamically link to the Cygwin library and include that DLL in your distribution, then you have to comply with the LGPL requirements for distributing LGPL code. This ...


3

Let's say that someone uses your project (licensed under your custom license) in an MIT licensed application. Since the MIT license explicitly allows the software to be distributed closed source, your custom license would be ineffective and would not make sense. If you do not want your library to be used in proprietary software, then the best choice would be ...


3

Will the software have to be GPL? That depends on how closely your software depends on the post-processing by ffmpeg in particular. If ffmpeg is just one of potentially many (independently developed) programs that can read and process the files your app creates, then your app is a separate and independent work from ffmpeg as far as copyright is concerned ...


3

The Classpath Exception has a similar intention to the LGPL: to keep the covered work itself under GPL-like terms, while allowing linking with non-GPL components. In particular, this allows such works to be integrated with proprietary software. However, there are some differences. How they are applied: The Classpath Exception is an additional permission ...


3

This depends a bit on the version of the LGPL. The LGPLv3 is not a standalone license, but an Additional Permission that can be applied to the GPLv3. Thus, your licensing documentation should include both the GPLv3 and the LGPLv3. This can be achieved by putting each into a separate file, or by putting both into the same file. The LGPLv2 is a standalone ...


3

When creating a fork of a LGPL or GPL licensed project, the requirements are actually quite simple: you must use the same license for your forked project. you must keep all copyright notices (lines with the word Copyright, a (range of) year and one or more names) intact. You are allowed to add your own copyright notices on files you modified. you must keep ...


3

However, what happens if one wishes to link an LGPL software to a proprietary library? The aim of the GPL (and to a slightly lesser extent the LGPL) is that a recipient of the (L)GPL-licensed code has the right to make changes to any part of the code. For that reason, the GPL stipulates that the entire project must conform to the terms and conditions of the ...


3

I think this is legally fine, but not technically feasible. You're proposing that a library is linked into a binary both statically and dynamically, with the statically linked version serving as a fallback in case no dynamically loadable library has been provided. This seems to meet the LGPL-3.0's definition of a “suitable mechanism”. The phrasing of that ...


3

The SLA0044 is a zero-cost licence; it permits redistribution and use without payment, but it doesn't give users most of the freedoms associated with free software. It is also, as you have pointed out, aggressively keen to stay that way. As I read it, you can't meaningfully release your code under GPL, since your code requires the library to build into a ...


3

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 - ...


2

No, although you do have to release the source code of the library itself. However, your application must allow someone to use their own, modified version of the library.


2

The LGPL license requires that the library and modifications to the library are made public. If you dynamically link to the library, then your game can remain closed source, even if you distribute the library in the same package. You just have to make sure that users of your game can replace the Toemsel.Network library with a different, compatible, version.


2

Note that this answer is wrong, as pointed out by amon in the comments. It is mostly correct for LGPL2, but LGPL3 added a special header exemption in section 3 that allows redistribution of an application at any terms even if there are header files with significant logic in them. I need to rewrite or delete the remaining answer. The rewritten answer will ask ...


2

No, that is not possible. First, the header file and the corresponding implementation are closely related enough that if one is under the LGPL license, then the LGPL requires that the other is also under the LGPL license. And putting the header file also under a proprietary license is not going to work either if the existing LGPL code needs to be modified to ...


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