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).
Related
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 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 was evaluating ZK framework, which is LGPL and it's spring plugin zk-spring is GPL.
If i develop a system with different application like domain, web(zk, zk-spring), web-services. Now When I deploy these application on the client machine, would i have to also provide all the source code of my applications to the client? I also want to keep proprietary of code to myself.
Or Should i buy license and can own my application code and don't have to use the GPL.
I am not clear so, please answer my all concerns and issue involved here.
looking forward to hear from you soon and thanks in advance.
If you wish to distribute any work that is derivative of, or contains sufficient protectable expressive content taken from, a work covered by the GPL, you must also distribute the source code of that work, even if you wrote it. There really is no better answer possible. If you need an opinion that you can legally rely on, consult an attorney.
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
Is mysql license needed for sites like facebook, twitter etc.. i dont know which category they fall into. thats why.
No, they can use GPL which is freely available. They would need to make Software that links to MySQL like a library or is even based on MySQL GPL, too, but as far as I know, they are not doing any of that. Even if, the GPL would force them to pass on the source code to anyone to whom they give the binary. Since they are not giving away the binary to anyone, there would not be a problem either ;-).
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
Does anybody knows if I can use (opens source) software components/controls, which are under the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), in commercial projects ?
Can anybody provide me a good and above all clear site with a overview of all open source licences and their restrictions ?
The FSF's License List is one of the more comprehensive, and legally pedantic (in this case a good thing).
That list identifies the Ms-RL as a free-software copyleft license incompatible with the GPL.
If that description isn't enough to answer your question, then either the question is too broad for this sort of forum and will need find a more license oriented forum; or, the question is too specific to your situation (ie. you are probably attempting to loophole the license), and you will need to talk to a lawyer.
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 want to use CxxTest for unit-testing in an application. I do not want to be forced to release source code or object files. The LGPL (under which CxxTest is released) is confusing on this issue.
Am I ok? Do I need to do something special?
As long as you're not distributing your tests it's not something you need to worry about.
If money is involved, you need to consult with an attorney. LGPL is not straightforward.
From what I can see, you'll be alright with the LGPL, however,
If it is a derivative work, then the terms must allow "modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications."