Home > Archive > Open Source Software > January 2006 > Compatibility between MIT and LGPL
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Compatibility between MIT and LGPL
|
|
| Thomas Baruchel 2005-11-07, 10:03 pm |
| Hi,
I am aware this question probably has a quite simple answer, but I
don't know much about licenses. I am planning to code a library,
and my favorite license is the MIT one, but I use a library (the GNU GMP
library) which has the LGPL license.
What I do is merely provide my own code, assuming the user already has
the GMP library on his/her own computer: I deliver no part (even header)
of the GMP code ; the linking part occurs at compilation time (on the
user's computer).
I think there is no problem, but I would rather be sure.
As soon as I have time I will read more carefully the LGPL license,
but what I have understood yet is that the most important in my case
is to explicitly tell that I use the library with the LGPL license, right ?
Regards,
--
Thomas Baruchel --- Home Page: http://baruchel.free.fr/~thomas/
write to baruchel at the host called bluebottle dot com
écrire à baruchel chez l'hôte nommé bluebottle point com
(you will be asked for a confirmation the first time you write)
| |
|
| Thomas Baruchel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am aware this question probably has a quite simple answer, but I
> don't know much about licenses. I am planning to code a library,
> and my favorite license is the MIT one, but I use a library (the GNU GMP
> library) which has the LGPL license.
>
> What I do is merely provide my own code, assuming the user already has
> the GMP library on his/her own computer: I deliver no part (even header)
> of the GMP code ; the linking part occurs at compilation time (on the
> user's computer).
>
> I think there is no problem, but I would rather be sure.
> As soon as I have time I will read more carefully the LGPL license,
> but what I have understood yet is that the most important in my case
> is to explicitly tell that I use the library with the LGPL license, right ?
>
> Regards,
>
No, applications that are only linked with an LGPL'ed library are not
considered a derivative work in their source code form. The executable
binary or object code form is a derivative work because part of the
library's code would be included in the final code. So you could license
it with the MIT license. If you distribute it in full binary or object
code executable form, you would have to give notice with the software
the library is used in it and that the library is licensed under the
LGPL. Since you don't plan to, this won't matter. You might want to warn
the users of the application about that if they distribute the software
in an executable format, they would have to mention that it includes
portions of a library licensed under the LGPL.
Your Welcome,
Ekiru
|
|
|
|
|