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 should also be possible to exchange that dynamically linked library for an independently compiled build.

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 host a seperate fork of the library, I can promote contributing to the original library (e.g. via pull requests).

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. LGPLv3 makes it explicit that even if the product is embedded firmware, you still must make it possible for the end-user to replace the LGPL'd part.

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, but don't if you just provide a service; AGPL: you have to allow the source to be downloaded even if you never distribute the binary but do provide a ...

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 source code available. There is also a restriction that the LGPL code in your application must be replaceable by the user of your code.

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 on what they could do with the software. It is generally clearer than the GPL 2 …

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 changes), or retain the original one?

If you want to avoid these problems then you need to use things with a different license or at the very least the LGPL which will allow run-time calling of libraries without the viral-spread of the GPL conditions back to your code. When in doubt you need legal advice. Any advice you get here (from me or anyone else)should be treated fairly ...

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 against these clauses, but I will these suddenly apply to the main application if I …

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 the GPL instead of another license is that it forces dependent …