New answers tagged

1

I don't know with enough confidence what the situation is with regard to the students. When it comes to employees of the organization, when they are provided with a copy of (L)GPL-licensed software, with the understanding that that software is provided to them so they can perform their duties on behalf of the organization, then that software is considered to ...


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

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 ...


2

Because we use those LGPLv2.1 libraries and distribute them together with the rest of our application we have too license our work under at least LGPLv2.1 As long as your software has some application component that contains no LGPL-licensed code (but depends on an LGPL library), you may distribute that application component linked to LGPLv2.1-licensed ...


2

The source that you are required to disclose according to the LGPL is not the project you forked from, but the source code of your package. And the LGPL defines source code as "the format that is preferred for making modifications". Stating in your readme which package you forked from and what changes you made to it is not wrong, but it is not what ...


2

As I read it, you are right, your library must be released under LGPLv2.1(+). You've based it squarely on the libmodbus code, which is indeed LGPLv2.1+, and by s2c you must release your modified version of the library under the same license. I'm sorry you'd prefer to write an MIT-licensed library, but you chose to modify LGPL code, and so the old adage ...


Top 50 recent answers are included