Can LGPL licenses be used in our proprietary systems?

Posted by jon on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by jon
Published on 2010-03-17T17:05:31Z Indexed on 2010/03/17 17:11 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 210

Filed under:

lgpl

|

gpl

|

fckeditor

|

ckeditor

|

tinymce

We want to use either the FCK/CKeditor or the TinyMCE editor in our CRM application. We charge the customer use of the CRM system which is bespoke to use and them. I noticed both the editors have GPL and LGPL licenses. However CKEditor has a Closed License too in addition to the LGPL.

My questions are: 1) Although we don't sell our code or binaries, we provide software as a hosted service, can we use LGPL licenses?

2) Why does CKEditor provide LGPL and Closed licenses if the LGPL should make it easy for any proprietary software to use it? Is it only for systems which are sold as a binary where the product is for example physically installed as an .exe?

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about lgpl

Dual-licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I maintain a software, a small PHP library, that is released under the LGPL version 3 license (LGPLv3). Someone wants to use the library in their software which has the GPL version 2 license. This license compatibility matrix suggests this is not possible without changing the licensing terms of one… >>> More
LGPL and Dual Licensing Ajax Library

as seen on Stack Overflow - Search for 'Stack Overflow'
Hi guys, I'm the previous founder of Gaiaware and Gaia Ajax Widgets and when I used to work there we had this rhetoric (which I have confirmed with some very smart FOSS people is correct) that when using a GPL Ajax library you're basically "distributing" the JavaScript which in turn makes the GPL… >>> More
LGPL to MIT License

as seen on Stack Overflow - Search for 'Stack Overflow'
Hi, I was wondering if it is possible to release code I am working on which uses third party code licensed under the LGPL, under for instance the MIT License? Basically I dont want to change the license of the LGPL part, I am just wondering what happens with it if I chose a different license for… >>> More
Does the LGPL allow me to do this?

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I am planning to develop a commercial software using a LGPL software. In the LGPL software that I am using some functions in a class are not fully implemented. I want to modify the LGPL code so that the class and not-implemented functions are made visible outside the dll by adding dllexport infront… >>> More
How to mark that a lgpl library is modified

as seen on Stack Overflow - Search for 'Stack Overflow'
I am using an LGPL library in my code. For my needs, I need to modify the code in the library. How do I mark the jar file that it contains modified code? Some txt file in the jar? In that case, what do I write in the txt file? I will include in the license agreement that we are distributing a modified… >>> More

Related posts about gpl

GPL code allowing non-GPL local copies of nondistributed code

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I have come across a book that claims that alterations and augmentations to GPL works can be kept close-source as long as these are not redistributed into the wild. Therefore, customizations of websites deriving from GPL packages need not be released under the GPL and developers can earn profit on… >>> More
Licensing software that uses GPL code with licenses other than GPL

as seen on Stack Overflow - Search for 'Stack Overflow'
Let's say I write some code, which we'll call X. It uses some GPL code, let's call it library Y. Clearly I would have to release X with a GPL license. That's fine. My question is, can I additionally release X under a license such as MIT, so that if someone only wants X but not Y they don't need to… >>> More
Does using GCC specific builtins qualify as incorporation within a project?

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this. #include "gpl_program.h" means you'd have to license GPL, because… >>> More
"Integratable" but not "integrated" GPL

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
There has been much debate over whether or not merely linking to a piece of code makes it a derivative work. I know FSF says "yes", so according to them I can't dynamically link a non-GPL compatible program to a GPL library and distribute the whole. But I could do that for private use, as long as… >>> More
GPL: does one line of GPLed code make program a "derived work"

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I've recently run into some argument with a person that claims to be a lawyer (I have my suspicions about this not being completely true, though). As far as I know, copying even one line of code from GPLed program into proprietary body of code requires you to release the whole thing under GPL, if… >>> More