#LGPL and GPL is different LGPL is the

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

gilded onyx
#

Yes..

#

Each of those "same license" is for modififcations.

dense dragon
#

The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities.
GPL obviously not allow what you want

#

It's not for modification.

winter zenith
#

It also wouldn't make any sense if you could build a program using a GPL piece of software, and then not distribute the source code on request, since that would defeat the goal the GPL license is trying to achieve

gilded onyx
#

My argument is that I'm allowd to make software(and license it how ever I want) my software can also reference the GPL software. I need to share the GPL with users and make source available to that code. But I'm not required to license my software in so specific way or release my sources.
Now if I get that GPL project and change it then I have to release my changes under same license.

winter zenith
#

You cannot just license your project however you want to

gilded onyx
winter zenith
#

Sure you can, GPL allows commercial use, but not for code distribution afaik

gilded onyx
winter zenith
#

Since then you could say you want 10 trillion dollars

gilded onyx
#

Yup

winter zenith
#

The license states you need to release it under the same license

gilded onyx
#

Where?

#

I only see that same license with reference to modififcations.

winter zenith
#

I linked you the section earlier

gilded onyx
#

Yes but that section was in regards to modified versions of the original work. Not new works that access the original.

winter zenith
#

Then explain the existence of the LGPL

#

The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter allows the work to be linked with (in the case of a library, "used by") a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is licensed under a license of GPL family or other licenses.

dense dragon
winter zenith
#

^

dense dragon
#

If you want to use other people's code, follow their license

winter zenith
#

They have the copy right (or copy left) on it after all

#

Just as you have copy right on original works that you produce

gilded onyx
#

LGPL is less restrictive than GPL.
GPL is compatible with LGPL.
LGPL is NOT compatible with GPL.

winter zenith
#

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, they are different licenses

dense dragon
#

That means you can convert LGPL to GPL (because it has more restriction)
But not other way around

gilded onyx
#

Yes

winter zenith
#

If that's what you meant, then yes, that is correct

gilded onyx
#

Okay fair enough.

winter zenith
#

The point of the GPL is to give people the freedom over their own hardware, by forcing you to give them your source code on request, if you have distributed your program to them

#

(at least that's the "spirit" behind the GPL specifically)

gilded onyx
#

The spirit is preventing closed source systems from growing from the open project.

winter zenith
#

No, since it allows commercial use, and you only need to distribute the source if you distributed it to someone

#

The GPL does nothing if you never distribute it

gilded onyx
#

"distribute" that's when the lawyers come into play

winter zenith
#

Well the lawyers would only come into play only if you somehow violate the license

gilded onyx
#

No

#

Lawyers come into play without violations as well.

#

I used to work with a woman who went to the supreme court in the 80s? with a software copyright case.

winter zenith
#

Ok

gilded onyx
#

This was a landmark case and they had an IBM legal team they offered up their lawyers because they had a large interest.

winter zenith
#

I don't see how that relates to the GPL