Sign up using Email and Password. The main argument for MIT or any other lgpl license over GPL is that more people may end up using your software. This bitcoins the code license be used in otherwise proprietary software. Anybody mit ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. This prevents the code from being used in proprietary software. JorgeOrpinel "Only code with no license could fall in that category.
can i buy bitcoins with western union В»
Even if you're dumping the code with no interest in maintaining it, GPL gives it a better hope of remaining free. We should be clear here. Jeremy non-GPL licenses have their own political positions. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:. Bottom line - copyright dispute: The licenses are far more complex, far utilizing structures more accessible to lawyers than programmers, and not necessarily any less vague. However, as Mason Wheeler mentioned, if the idea is to spread it as much as possible with lesser rules, I can understand the argument.
Like Oli said, you don't legally need to use your real name or bitcoins email bitcoins the header of a file to keep your copyright rights, but it's highly recommended to save you and other people from headaches later on. Check these links i posted few months lgpl. If you use a library that is LGPL, and you dynamically link with that library, your software does not have to mit released with a compatible license, but you must still mit with the LGPL. One disadvantage would be that it is not compatible with GPLv2. Somebody could take your code, verbatim, and re-release it under License, proprietary license, etc. Software Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for lgpl, academics, and students working within the systems development life cycle.
btc invest bitcointalk scryptcc В»
You can compile a c program you write with gcc hence using LGPL licenced runtime routine libraries from gcc and still release you software without the restrictions of the GPL. I think that is the general gist of it.
However, this it not in any way legal advice. For legal advice you must retain a certified attorney who can give you legal advice fitting your particular circumstances. If you cut and paste or link against GPL'd code into your application, your application must be licensed under GPL and you are then required to release the code.
However, you can still sell your application and afaik, the only oblication is that you release the sourcecode to your customers. If the library you link against is Lesser Gnu Public License aka LGPL then you dont need to release your own application's code but you are still required to release all modifications if you modified the lgpl'd code.
Either way you can still sell the application. Email Sign Up or sign in with Google. Note the LGPL states the used library must be replaceable. Thus static linking isn't possible. Only if you also provide the source code for that DLL, as well as the required header files or documentation in order to be able to interface with the rest of the application, should anyone want to heavily modify, or re-write from scratch, that DLL. GPL Other developers can borrow and modify the code and re-distribute it as part of their own project, only if their entire project is also licensed under the GPL.
This prevents the code from being used in proprietary software. This allows the code to be used in otherwise proprietary software. IANAL, but the concepts are fairly straightforward. If you use a library that is GPL, and you link with that library, your software must be released with a compatible license. If you use a library that is LGPL, and you dynamically link with that library, your software does not have to be released with a compatible license, but you must still comply with the LGPL.
If you use a library that is LGPL, and you statically link with that library, your software must be released with a compatible license. So straightforward in fact that you need to engage a lawyer just to see if you can use a bit of code. This is why developers should never use GPL licenses. I thought the src has to made publically available? Im not native english speaker nor lawyer. It does not say that anyone can request the source, but anyone who has been provided with the binary, either directly from you or by your direct customers.
Stack Exchange in Review. By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service. Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered. Software Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professionals, academics, and students working within the systems development life cycle.
Join them; it only takes a minute: Here's how it works: Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Moraru 1 3 7. Chris Travers 6 MartinBeckett I've read that question before posting my question and doesn't look like someone there actually answered the question. Moraru Mar 8 '13 at 5: Moraru It looks that way to me. The larger issue is that if you give additional permissions to disregard that section under these two licenses, they can be sublicensed away by intermediaries because such is the nature of additional permissions in these licenses.
Of course if the BSD license both is compatible and does not allow sublicensing, then I see no reason that non-removable additional permissions couldn't be added to the software as such by the original authors. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password.