Feb 13, 2011 · In short: yes you can. But one important thing to take care of is that the GNU LGPL covered library is dynamically linked, not statically mixed with the main application. It …

Both LGPL and MPL promote sharing of modifications to the LGPL/MPL licensed software being used inside other software projects. Instead of requiring the users of the modified library to …

I think you have to start with the intent of the LGPL 2.1 and the LGPL 3. The LGPL 2.1 was designed to be a license written largely in plain English that would give programmers guidance …

For LGPL, the restriction (see above) only applies to the source-code of the LGPL'ed library itself; i.e. if you change the library. If you just use the library, you are not required to make your …

What are the differences between GNU LGPL v2.1 and GNU LGPL v3? In particular, I know that regular GPLv3 has many anti-drm and anti-patent clauses. In principal I don't have anything …

Nov 9, 2018 · Can they make an improvement to the LGPL'd part and use the new improved version with the original product? If yes, then you've complied with the intended purpose of the …

LGPL: you can link against and don't have to release source code as long as you don't modify the library itself; GPL: you have to release source code if you link against and distribute the binary, …

Oct 7, 2015 · If I would like to make some changes to this file and re-distribute it under the same license (GNU LGPL v 2.1) do I update the copyright date or owner name (in order to reflect the …

Feb 13, 2017 · The LGPL is the same as the GPL plus some extra permissions. The key difference is that the LGPL strips the GPL from most of its “virality”. But the only reason to use …

Creating an LGPL wrapper for a GPL library may allow you also to claim copyright on the combined work, but it absolutely does not give you the right to change the terms under which …