New answers tagged

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 - ...


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

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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included