Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 3 months ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I have read on the web that following combination exists :
Proprietary Source code + GPL Source code - > GPL Source code ( All code has to be released under GPL)
Proprietary Source code + LGPL Source code - > Proprietary Source code ( All code remains Proprietary )
Now how does statically/Dynamically linking GPL and LGPL code works with the above combination?
If you want to distribute a combined work, you'll have to use the following license;
Proprietary Source code + GPL Source code
Either static or dynamically linked: You must release both parts as GPL.
Proprietary Source code + LGPL Source code
statically linked:
Either you must release both parts as LGPL.
Or provide everything that allow the user to relink the application with a different version of the LGPL source code. In this case the other requirements are the same as if it was dynamically linked.
dynamically linked: LGPL code stays LGPL, you can keep the proprietary code proprietary.
See also executing a (L)GPL program from proprietary Source code.
Update (November 2014): A Comprehensive Tutorial and Guide contains a clear an detailed description of the (L)GPL and its usage, including distribution. I recommend it for more details.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there any resource of how mysql's source code (https://github.com/mysql/mysql-server) works?
Any flow diagrams related to code's folders and files.
The official docs includes a section called MySQL Internals. There are sections included about navigating the source tree and what is where.
If you can look past his blatant towing of the company line (e.g. his apparent claims that the "real" MySQL will always be better and more awesome than MariaDB or Percona, because... Oracle!) and that he seems to imply that if you make any change to the source, you have to give those changes to Oracle and should probably send them a bunch of money, too... then there is some good material to be found in a book called Expert MySQL, which includes a decent low-level view of how it works and code snippets walking you through some source code tweaks to add new functionality.
But, there is a large amount of in-line documentation embedded in the code itself.
how "source code works"? it is in sources i guess
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B
https://www.google.ru/search?q=flow+diagram+mysql&newwindow=1&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=852&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CBsQsARqFQoTCPXHzsTD88cCFcYlcgodYHME-w&dpr=0.9#imgrc=MrlmbXUK6VPJjM%3A
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I’m somewhat confused about the implications of introducing source code licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License. I'm developing a test framework and I want to use and modify an open source project as part of the existing framework. Does this imply that the entire test framework should be open sourced?
You can integrate the LGPL component into a proprietary solution as long as it stays separate. So for example linking is fine, usage as a processor is fine. Bundling is also fine, as long as you clearly state that the bundle contains LGPL software and which that is.
You certainly can modify that software to your needs, that is the whole point of Open Source Software. However of you spread it again afterwards, for example by bundling it with your framework, you have to publish your modifications.
In general follow this rule of thumb:
You can use it and modify it to your needs, but do not try to make it appear as if you implemented that solution. Be fair and give credits to those who did the work for you.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Sometime ago the question Ms-RL - Explanation needed was posted. The only answer given relating to section 3A was:-
3(A) Reciprocal Grants- For any file you distribute that contains code
from the software (in source code or binary format), you must provide
recipients the source code to that file along with a copy of this
license, which license will govern that file. You may license other
files that are entirely your own work and do not contain code from the
software under any terms you choose.
Translation: For each file that uses files under the Ms-RL, you need to
provide the source and a copy of the license.
What is not clear to me is the definition of the word file. If I make use of a DLL licensed under Ms-RL (such as a visual component/control) and I ship my DLL/EXE along with their DLL and their source code is that sufficient to satisfy the license? If I now zip the files or compose an MSI do I now have to include my source code too as the zip/MSI file contains the binary of their DLL?
If you're shipping the component itself, just make sure that the source of it is made available "somewhere" and it's properly defined the license being used (in this case the Ms-RL), just a txt somewhere saying "the component can be found at xxx"
It's not a viral license so using this doesn't affect the rest of your project
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have ported some LGPL code from Java to C#, which I plan to release as an open source component. Do I have to release my new library under LGPL too, or can I go with something less restrictive like MS-PL?
Since you're basing your work on the original LGPL work, it seems to me that your work is a derivative of the original, and so section 2 of the license applies: Your code needs to be LGPL or, at your option, GPL. (The wording is different in versions 2 and 3, but it's the same section.) But I'm just a programmer, so what do I know? You're asking a question about the law, so your best course of action is to ask a lawyer.
I believe you have to use LGPL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL
It depends on whether your port is a derivative work (generally port == derivative work).
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the implications of including a set of visual components released under a Mozilla Public License in a commercial application.
Do I have any obligations?
I've found pretty good analysis on MPL (and others) by Frank Hecker here:
http://hecker.org/writings/setting-up-shop (search for "Mozilla Public License")
This pretty much sums it up:
For MozPL-ed source code considered as
a set of source files, modifications
of the original source files are
considered to also fall under the
MozPL, as are new source files
incorporating extracts from the
original source files. Such modified
or new files are required to be
licensed under the same terms as the
original files, and in particular must
be made freely and publicly available
in source form.
...
Thus an open-source product initially
released under the MozPL may be
extended with proprietary code to
create new proprietary products, as
long as the proprietary code is
separate (i.e., in separate files) and
interacts with the open-source code
using a defined API.
But as usual, read it carefully and consult your lawyers.
The only problem is if you modify the components you must release them under Mozilla Public License as well