Re: LGPL 2.1 and New BSD license




"Armando" <a.b@xxxx> wrote in message
news:uoqKn.61257$Ua.10987@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
I need some clarifications about LGPL and New BSD licenses.
By using QT free license (LGPL 2.1) I know I can distribute my program
as an executable and so as closed source. Am I right?
However I can only dynamically link the QT libraries used by my program.
Right?
Does it mean any user who executes my program has to download QT to
execute my program? Or can I distribute also the QT object files
required by my program?
If my program makes also use of other libraries under New BSD license,
what changes?


LGPL requires releasing the source for the LGPL'ed library and any changes
made to this library, and if one is using the library, ideally they provide
a link back to where the sources can be gotten.

AFAIK, one is also supposed to be able to rebuild the library and use it
with the pre-existing app (although AFAIK this is not specified until
GPLv3).

however, it is allowed to not release the source for other parts of the app
(unlike the full GPL, which would require releasing all app sources).


distributing apps in binary form is not a problem with either the LGPL or
GPL, provided sources are made available as well...

using BSD sources should not make any issue with a GPL'ed or LGPL'ed project
AFAIK.


maybe others can provide clarifications or corrections, as I forget a lot of
the details...



Thank You!
Armando


.



Relevant Pages

  • LGPL 2.1 and New BSD license
    ... I need some clarifications about LGPL and New BSD licenses. ... However I can only dynamically link the QT libraries used by my program. ... Does it mean any user who executes my program has to download QT to ...
    (comp.programming)
  • LGPL and New BSD licenses
    ... I need some clarifications about LGPG and New BSD licenses. ... By using QT free license (LGPL 2.1) I know I can distribute my program ... However I can only dynamically link the QT libraries used by my program. ... Does it mean any user who executes my program has to download QT to ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: license question?
    ... Under the circumstances I tend to avoid even LGPL ... -the users of my libraries will see it the same way. ... then someone would try to exploit the code under the license ... But static linking doesn't comtaminate anything. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: license question?
    ... Under the circumstances I tend to avoid even LGPL ... -the users of my libraries will see it the same way. ... then someone would try to exploit the code under the license ... But static linking doesn't comtaminate anything. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: GPL encumbrance problems
    ... then the licenses seem to claim that the program produced is some sort of derived work. ... And they were of the opinion that the tool used to do the linking was also irrelevant. ... They were concerned that distributing the library and then using the loader to link up proprietary code and LGPL code "after the fact" could be considered an attempt to evade the provisions of the license, and might cause a court to view this as devious behavior. ... In the case of dynamic linking, it does NOT follow that, as you claim, "LGPL forceany *other* libraries I might link with to be distributed in a form which can be reverse engineered and repaired by the end user.". ...
    (Fedora)