Search Results

Search found 132 results on 6 pages for 'lgpl'.

Page 1/6 | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • Dual-licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

    - by user594694
    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 of the software. I have been requested to dual-license my code under LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3. Does it make sense, and what might the drawbacks be? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Does the LGPL allow me to do this?

    - by user1229892
    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 of class and by adding virtual keyword infront of function. Then I plan to implement those functions in my proprietary software. I am ready to distribute the modified LGPL code but not proprietary software that implements functions in the way I want. Does that violate LGPL terms and conditions?

    Read the article

  • The use of LGPL for Commercial use

    - by Smarty Twiti
    I am trying to make my first app for sale, I would like to ask some questions for those who have already sold their software: Have you used a Framework/Lib whose LGPL License? if yes, what are the impressions of your customers? for example, if your customers/ competitors from the market reveal technology/secrets that you used in your solution (as LGPL requires that you make a Dynamic Link (.DLL) for your libs and you clearly tell the use of a Lib/Framework ...). Full story: For my project, I used a framework LGPL/commercial (Dual License) the second one it was too expensive (about 3000 USD) which pushed me to use LGPL.. however I still concerned.. That is why I ask for advise and especially motivations... Please do not hesitate to participate... Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Sharing code in LGPL and proprietary software

    - by Martin
    Hi I'm working on a piece of software that'll be released as a dll under LGPL. The software interfaces with hardware from a small company that has provided me with the needed libraries and some code to use them correctly (not only headers but its all in a separate file). As far as i know, the same code is used in their proprietary software that they don't intend to open source but they'd be fine releasing the piece of code they've given me. Now here's the question: What license could be used on the code I got from the company? I guess using GPL or LGPL would make them violate GPL when using the same code in their other software. Is MIT a good idea? Is it ok to just include a file with MIT license on it in my otherwise LGPL:ed project? Since I'm not the copyright holder, I'd have to ask the company to apply the license obviously but that shouldn't be a problem. Thanks /Martin

    Read the article

  • LGPL License in commercial application

    - by Jacob
    I have searched around but I don't seem to be able to get a clear answer on my questions that I understand. I want to use the Xuggler library in my application, which is licensed either GPL or LGPL depending on whether I compile it myself. I don't intend to edit the library If I compile it myself and thus get a LGPL version of the library, can I use it in a commercial application without having to distribute the source code of my application? Furthermore, do I have to give my application the LGPL license as well? What other problems might using this library give me?

    Read the article

  • How does trilicense (mpl,gpl,lgpl) work when you want to use it on public website

    - by tomok
    I have tried to search for this answer for quite some time and I have gone through all the various FAQ's and documentation regarding the three licenses; but none of them have been able to answer a question that I have. So I've been working an idea for a website for sometime now and recently I found open source software that has many of components that are similar. It is licensed under the mpl/gpl/lgpl licenses. I think for the most part I understand the ramifications, due to the searches and reading, of what is required if I modify/use and want to distribute the software. But what if I want to modify and not distribute, but use it on a public website that I generate ad revenue from? Is this illegal? It doesn't seem like it is from reading other open source system, say like Drupal, where they allow you to use the software but it's not considered "distribution" if people just go to the website. I know this site may not be the best resource and I've tried some other sites, but I haven't received any clear replies back. If you know some other resource that I could contact also, please let me know. Links for those who don't know: MPL - Wikipedia, Legalese GPL - Wikipedia, Legalese LGPL - Wikipedia, Legalese

    Read the article

  • GPL/LGPL/MPL non-code content license

    - by user1103142
    I want to use a dictionary (basically a text file, and no code) that is included with an open office spell checking plug-in. The plug-in is under the tri-license GPL/LGPL/MPL which I don't understand. is that legal? If it is illegal, what if I wrote a script that uses the said open office plug-in to generate the dictionary (assuming it's technically possible, the script will generate all possible letter permutations, passes it to the plug-in and saves the correct ones) ? I will be using the dictionary in a closed source commercial application. The dictionary is in a language that has very little resources online, and short of making my own dictionary, there aren't any alternatives. Clarification: The script idea I mentioned above, isn't a weird technique, I would generate a document with all possible words and use open office with the plug-in installed to show spelling mistakes and remove them, isn't this the intended use of the plug-in (spell checking)?

    Read the article

  • I created a program based on an LGPL project, and I'm not allowed to publish the source code

    - by Dave
    I thought LGPL was a permissive license, just like MIT, BSD or Apache. But today I read, that only linking to LGPL (libraries etc) is allowed from closed-source code - other than that, it's copyleft - so I have to publish code that is based on an LGPL program. I created a program for my employer that is based on an LGPL program, but has considerable modifications to it. Of course, I am not allowed to put that modified source code out there. At the same time, I have to, if I distribute it (right?). So I wonder whether there is a workaround to this, so I can keep this closed-source (I wish I could publish the source) - any suggestions? My idea: can I put most functions of the original LGPL app into an external library, write the core executable from scratch, but refer back to the library for all functions that I haven't modified? Currently, everything is in a .jar file (it's Java/Swing). if you think my idea is legally/technically feasible - how much effort would it be to seperate what I wrote and what the original is? I'm not the most java savvy.

    Read the article

  • LGPL library with plugins of varied licenses

    - by Chris
    Note: "Plugins" here refers to shared objects that are accessed via dlopen() and friends. I'm writing a library that I'm planning on releasing under the LGPL. Its functionality can be extended (supporting new audio file formats, specifically) through plugins. I'm planning on creating an exception to the LGPL for this library so that plugins can be released under any license. So far so good. I've written a number of plugins already, some of which use LGPL and some of which use GPL libraries. I'm wary of releasing them with the main library, however, due to licensing issues. The LGPL-based ones would generally be fine, but for my "any license" clause. Would distributing these LGPL-based plugins with the library require the consent of the other license holders to create this exception? Along the same lines, would the inclusion of GPL-based plugins with my library force the whole thing to go GPL? I could also release the plugins separately. The advantage, I presume, is that the plugins an d library will now not be distributed together, creating more separation. But this seems to be no different, really, in the end. Boiled down: Can I include, with my LGPL library, plugins of varied licenses? If not, is it really any different releasing them separately? And if so, there's no real need to create an exception for non-LGPL plugins, is there? It's LGPL or nothing. I'd prefer asking a lawyer, of course, but this is just a hobby and I can't afford to hire a lawyer when I don't expect or want monetary compensation. I'm just hoping others have been in similar situations and have insight.

    Read the article

  • LGPL and Dual Licensing Ajax Library

    - by Thomas Hansen
    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 viral clause kick in and forces people to purchase a proprietary license if they're going to build Closed Source stuff... So now I'm the the LGPL world here with Ra-Ajax which is an LGPL licensed library and I've got no intentions of creating a GPL licensed library since I believe strongly in that the LGPL is the "enabler" of the Open Web to prevail. But something interesting have happened which I think might still give me a "business model" here which is the Linking clause of the LGPL which I think goes something like this (pseudo); "If you link to an LGPL licensed thing you get no restrictions on your own derived works"... But so we started creating something we're calling Ajax Starter-Kits which effectively is a "Project Kickstarter" where you can download a finished project/solution which basically enables you to start out with some pre-done boiler plate code for problems such as Ajax DataGrids, Ajax Calendar Applications, Ajax TreeView Applications etc. And the funny thing is that our users would NOT "link" to these, they would effectively BE our users applications... So to wrap up my question. Would this force users of our LGPL licensed Ajax Starter-Kits to LGPL license their own work? Basically if it does we have a business model (and I get very happy) if not I'd just have to hope people would still like to pay us those $29 for our Starter-Kits to support the project... ;) Help rewarded with extreme gratitude...

    Read the article

  • Is there a modified LGPL license that allows static linking?

    - by Petr Pudlák
    úLGPL requires that it if a program uses LGPL-ed library, users must be able to re-link the program with a different version of the library: ... d) Do one of the following: 0) 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 to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source. 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version. ... However in some cases, this can pose considerable difficulties. In particular, Haskell programs are almost always statically compiled. Moreover, the compiler does cross-module optimizations so it's very hard to satisfy this condition. (See this link at Haskell Wiki.) Therefore, I'm looking for a standard LGPL-like license that wouldn't require the possibility of re-linking. Some projects use their own modification of LGPL, for example wxWidgets. But I'd rather use some standard license that is somewhat more official, perhaps checked by some law experts, and (L)GPL compatible. Is there some like that? (Also I'd be interested to know if are there some unforeseen consequences of such a modification of LGPL.)

    Read the article

  • Have you used a Framework/Lib whose LGPL License? if yes, what are the impressions of your customers?

    - by Smarty Twiti
    I am trying to make my first app for sale, I would like to ask some questions for those who have already sold their software: Have you used a Framework/Lib whose LGPL License? if yes, what are the impressions of your customers? for example, if your customers/ competitors from the market reveal technology/secrets that you used in your solution (as LGPL requires that you make a Dynamic Link (.DLL) for your libs and you clearly tell the use of a Lib/Framework). Full story: For my project, I used a framework LGPL/commercial (Dual License) the second one it was too expensive (about 3000 USD) which pushed me to use LGPL however I still concerned. That is why I ask for advise and especially motivations.

    Read the article

  • LGPL to MIT License

    - by user300713
    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 the whole package or if that is even possible. I know for the GPL it would not be possible at all, but what exactly does the LGPL allow me? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Ethics and Law of modified LGPL code deployment in a commercial software

    - by dr. evil
    First bit of the question: What are the legal requirements of LGPL code during the deployment of a commercial product? Software package should include LGPL licence file Anything else? Shall we add a line to our "software agreement text" where you need to click next in the installer ? Second bit, Is there any known / accepted ways of distributing the changed library. Since it's LGPL anything derived from it should be licenced under LGPL. But what about after that? Shall we just send a copy to the original author? Shall we put it in our website so people can download? Or ship the source code with the product? Or just put a note that saying "e-mail us for the source code of this library".

    Read the article

  • Is a program linked against an LGPL library in linux still under GPL?

    - by Jonathan Henson
    If I were to write say, an embeded linux video server, how much of the code do I have to offer to someone who requests the source? Do I have to offer the code that directly links against the GPL covered code or do I have to offer all code? For instance, if I use gstreamer, or any other LGPL code, on a linux platform in my program, does all of my code become under GPL simply because somewhere in the chain, the LGPL program had to link agaist GPL code? I guess this is an extension of the question. Can you write a C library that compiles in linux that does not become subject to GPL?

    Read the article

  • Is this a valid LGPL scenario?

    - by themapguyde
    Suppose I have Project X under closed source. It references/links to component Y which is LGPL, we make modifications to component Y 1) We release Project X binaries with the source to the modified component Y OR 2) We contribute component Y modifications back upstream (to the original author(s)) and release Project X binaries without component Y source. Does any of these scenarios comply with the LGPL?

    Read the article

  • Am I permitted to use an LGPL library without releasing the source to the rest of my application, if I dynamically reference the library?

    - by user185812
    I am a bit confused as to what I am/am not allowed to do with a LGPL Library that I intend on using in a small scale commercial C++ Application that I am developing. My current understanding, although I don't know if I am correct, is that I am permitted use the library without releasing the source to the rest of my application if I dynamically reference the library. Does anyone know if this is correct? Are there any restrictions as to how I reference the library? Thank You! I am not a native English speaker and don't understand the licence entirely.

    Read the article

  • What is the reason for section 1 of LGPL and what is the implication for section 9.

    - by Roland Schulz
    Why was section 1 added to LGPLv3? My understanding of section 3&4 is, one can convey the combined work under any license and with no requirements from GPLv3 (besides those explicitly stated as requirements in LGPLv3 3&4). Given that, why is section 1 necessary. Wouldn't that sections 3&4 by themselves already imply anyhow what section 1 explicitly states? I assume that I'm missing something and section 1 isn't redundant. Assuming that, does this have implications for other sections in GPLv3? E.g. does conveying a covered work under sections 3&4 fall under the patent clause of section 10 of GPLv3? Why does section 1 not also state an exception for section 10? Put another way. Is the Eigen FAQ correct by stating: LGPL requires [for header only libraries] pretty much the same as the 2-clause BSD license. It it true that for conveying object files including material from LGPLv3 headers no GPLv3 patent clauses apply?

    Read the article

  • How to mark that a lgpl library is modified

    - by David Göransson
    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 version of the jar, but my question is about marking the jar itself.

    Read the article

  • Using libraries with different licenses (CPOL + LGPL)

    - by jaens
    I'm developing a program that will be published on my university's website. In this program I use two libraries, one under the LGPL and one under the CPOL (link text). I plan on releasing the complete source code, libraries included (without modification). Do those licenses clash? What do I have to do to "fix" it? Do I have to do anything in particular (put text in source code files, put references in documentation...)? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Can LGPL licenses be used in our proprietary systems?

    - by jon
    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?

    Read the article

  • Qt LGPL licencing for a free application with closed source

    - by Andy M
    Hey everyone, I'm working on an application developped with Qt 4.6.2. I'm linking dynamicaly and I don't want to share my source code. The application is totally free and I don't plan on selling any part of it. I did not make any changes in the Qt library, I'm only using it to develop the application... I just want to share my free application, without having to share the source code... My question is, what would be your advices in choosing the correct licencing ? Thanks in advance for your answers !

    Read the article

  • QT, LGPL, Commercial closed-source application

    - by user364730
    We have a commercial windows application making use of QT. I'll be very simplistic in my description as I must have a clear answer. At compile time we use QT *.LIB files We have a result of our compilation is an *.EXE file, we wrap into an installer and ship to clients. This *.EXE files depends on *.DLL files in QT. at runtime the *.DLL files of QT are used My questions are: 1) is can I legally bundle the QT *.dll files in my installer? 2) can I legally bundle my final *.EXE files even if it's compilation/linkage depends on QT *.LIB files Thank you

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >