Comments on: Wanted: LGPL Legalese Translation http://www.sebruiz.net/263 Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:15:18 +0000 hourly 1 By: Joe http://www.sebruiz.net/263/comment-page-1#comment-10362 Joe Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:44:19 +0000 http://www.sebruiz.net/263#comment-10362 But if you dynamically link to the LGPL library in a closed sourced application do you have to provide the source code for the LGPL library? Also what do we mean by "provide" or "distribute" ? Is it enough to provide source code to users upon request or do you have to give to them when they download the app? I mean all of these various licenses seem to be geared totally toward programmers -- virtually all of the users of the product I'm currently working on will not be programmers so it seems weird to clutter up the download with a bunch of source code that will, if anything, scare them. But if you dynamically link to the LGPL library in a closed sourced application do you have to provide the source code for the LGPL library? Also what do we mean by “provide” or “distribute” ? Is it enough to provide source code to users upon request or do you have to give to them when they download the app? I mean all of these various licenses seem to be geared totally toward programmers — virtually all of the users of the product I’m currently working on will not be programmers so it seems weird to clutter up the download with a bunch of source code that will, if anything, scare them.

]]> By: wisacre http://www.sebruiz.net/263/comment-page-1#comment-8045 wisacre Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:59:16 +0000 http://www.sebruiz.net/263#comment-8045 A question asked "if LGPL licensed code could be used in a commercial application" is not at all a difficult question. Of course it can. Even GPL code can be used in a commercial application But it is not the question you meant to ask. You asked in a very unprecise and/or confused way. Because what you really meant was 'closed source' application, not 'commercial'. These two are not the same. (There are closed source applications which are not commercial [they are given away for free], and there are commercial applications that are not closed source [and even GPL].) So, yes, you can link to an LPGL application/library from a closed source application as long as your linking is dynamic, not static (and you respect the other rules of the LPGL license). A question asked “if LGPL licensed code could be used in a commercial application” is not at all a difficult question.

Of course it can. Even GPL code can be used in a commercial application

But it is not the question you meant to ask. You asked in a very unprecise and/or confused way. Because what you really meant was ‘closed source’ application, not ‘commercial’. These two are not the same. (There are closed source applications which are not commercial [they are given away for free], and there are commercial applications that are not closed source [and even GPL].)

So, yes, you can link to an LPGL application/library from a closed source application as long as your linking is dynamic, not static (and you respect the other rules of the LPGL license).

]]> By: Lloeki http://www.sebruiz.net/263/comment-page-1#comment-8026 Lloeki Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:10:13 +0000 http://www.sebruiz.net/263#comment-8026 You said: "... could be used in a commercial application" Answers seem to assume that commercial is equivalent to proprietary (and maybe you assumed so in your post, and may be the cause of your question), which is not true. This is the free as in beer vs free as in speech difference. So let's make my answer twofold: - Commercial: It is explicitly stated in LGPL (and GPL) that one can charge for the software (thus not free as in beer, but still free as in speech). That's part of freedom given by the GPL: you have the freedom to charge for it. An example of a successful business model based on this is SuperWaba. - Proprietary: As stated before, one can link LGPL software provided one 1. provides any modification to the LGPL code back to the community, and 2. define clearly the interface (API) between closed-source and LGPL code, so that one can create drop-in replacement of either the LGPL code or the proprietary software. I hope this has clarified this a bit. You said: “… could be used in a commercial application”
Answers seem to assume that commercial is equivalent to proprietary (and maybe you assumed so in your post, and may be the cause of your question), which is not true. This is the free as in beer vs free as in speech difference.
So let’s make my answer twofold:
- Commercial: It is explicitly stated in LGPL (and GPL) that one can charge for the software (thus not free as in beer, but still free as in speech). That’s part of freedom given by the GPL: you have the freedom to charge for it. An example of a successful business model based on this is SuperWaba.
- Proprietary: As stated before, one can link LGPL software provided one 1. provides any modification to the LGPL code back to the community, and 2. define clearly the interface (API) between closed-source and LGPL code, so that one can create drop-in replacement of either the LGPL code or the proprietary software.

I hope this has clarified this a bit.

]]> By: David http://www.sebruiz.net/263/comment-page-1#comment-8023 David Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:26:10 +0000 http://www.sebruiz.net/263#comment-8023 At least we (a fairly big medical company) use dynamically linked LGPL libraries in our Products. I'd go with the "you can use it in closed source applications without publishing your source as long as you don't modify it"-explanation. At least we (a fairly big medical company) use dynamically linked LGPL libraries in our Products. I’d go with the “you can use it in closed source applications without publishing your source as long as you don’t modify it”-explanation.

]]> By: Kevin Krammer http://www.sebruiz.net/263/comment-page-1#comment-8022 Kevin Krammer Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:57:10 +0000 http://www.sebruiz.net/263#comment-8022 If we are just talking about using the LGPL Code (not changing it, etc), the idea is basically that the recepient must be allowed and able to change the LGPL part of the resulting software. This is why LGPL libraries are usually dynamically linked, since linking them statically means that the software must be available in re-linkable form, e.g. object files of the non-LGPL part (probably inside a static library). If we are just talking about using the LGPL Code (not changing it, etc), the idea is basically that the recepient must be allowed and able to change the LGPL part of the resulting software.

This is why LGPL libraries are usually dynamically linked, since linking them statically means that the software must be available in re-linkable form, e.g. object files of the non-LGPL part (probably inside a static library).

]]> By: Bernhard Rode http://www.sebruiz.net/263/comment-page-1#comment-8020 Bernhard Rode Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:29:34 +0000 http://www.sebruiz.net/263#comment-8020 http://www.jboss.com/pdf/Why_We_Use_the_LGPL.pdf Thats a good explanation by Jboss. As far as I know: if proprietary software is statically linked with LGPL software -> the product is LGPLd if proprietary software is dynamicallylinked with LGPL software -> the product is NOT LGPLd Extended or derived software based on LGPL Code is LGPLd and the changes / extensions have to be contributed. The LGPL was designed for libraries, so proprietary may link to libraries without being in GPLd/LDPLd. I hope I could help http://www.jboss.com/pdf/Why_We_Use_the_LGPL.pdf

Thats a good explanation by Jboss.

As far as I know:
if proprietary software is statically linked with LGPL software -> the product is LGPLd
if proprietary software is dynamicallylinked with LGPL software -> the product is NOT LGPLd

Extended or derived software based on LGPL Code is LGPLd and the changes / extensions have to be contributed.

The LGPL was designed for libraries, so proprietary may link to libraries without being in GPLd/LDPLd.

I hope I could help

]]> By: thidney http://www.sebruiz.net/263/comment-page-1#comment-8019 thidney Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:20:03 +0000 http://www.sebruiz.net/263#comment-8019 You probably need source-lawyer and this is what I am certainly not. AFAIK LGPL code is GPL with one except. It could be used for linking with closed-source application. I think you can`t use (reuse) source code if your code is not GPL bud you can link to it whenever you like. You probably need source-lawyer and this is what I am certainly not.
AFAIK LGPL code is GPL with one except. It could be used for linking with closed-source application. I think you can`t use (reuse) source code if your code is not GPL bud you can link to it whenever you like.

]]> By: Chris http://www.sebruiz.net/263/comment-page-1#comment-8018 Chris Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:17:46 +0000 http://www.sebruiz.net/263#comment-8018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/ has a reasonably good writeup... As for the LGPL, I believe you can -- provided you publish modifications to the LGPLed code http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/ has a reasonably good writeup…

As for the LGPL, I believe you can — provided you publish modifications to the LGPLed code

]]>