![]() Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library. The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One. is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice. of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use. GPL for a. library makes it available only for free programs. Rights and Duties with Respect to the GPL. Open source is often incorrectly interpreted to mean "without cost." It is indeed true that GPL software can be used. The GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) is a free software license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The license allows developers and companies. Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and. At present, most GNU. Lesser GPL, and that means we are using. So we are. now seeking more libraries to release under the ordinary GPL. Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free. Using the. ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage. Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. ![]() There. are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain. The most common case is when a free library's features are. In that case, the library cannot give free software any. Lesser GPL for that. This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. This page describes LOCI's role in developing Bio-Formats. For the main web site, see: http:// Bio-Formats is a standalone Java. A comprehensive reference on GUI toolkits, user interface frameworks, software libraries, class libraries,windowing APIs, and related software tools for GUI. After all. there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would. However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like. GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline. library implements input editing and history for interactive programs. Releasing it. under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our. At least one application program is free. If we amass a collection of powerful GPL- covered libraries that have. This will be a significant advantage for further free. University projects can easily. Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition. GPL- covered collection. For example, they may appeal. Popularity is. tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the. But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve. We free software developers should. By releasing libraries that are limited to free. The whole free software movement will. GNU Lesser General Public License. The GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) is a free software license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The license allows developers and companies to use and integrate software released under the LGPL into their own (even proprietary) software without being required by the terms of a strong copyleft license to release the source code of their own components. The license only requires software under the LGPL be modifiable by end users via source code availability. For proprietary software, code under the LGPL is usually used in the form of a shared library, so that there is a clear separation between the proprietary and LGPL components. The LGPL is primarily used for software libraries, although it is also used by some stand- alone applications. The LGPL was developed as a compromise between the strong copyleft of the GNU General Public License (GPL) and more permissive licenses such as the BSD licenses and the MIT License. The word "Lesser" in the title shows that the LGPL does not guarantee the end user's complete freedom in the use of software; it only guarantees the freedom of modification for components licensed under the LGPL, but not for any proprietary components. History[edit]The license was originally called the GNU Library General Public License and was first published in 1. GPL version 2. The LGPL was revised in minor ways in the 2. GNU Lesser General Public License to reflect the FSF's position that not all libraries should use it. Version 3 of the LGPL was published in 2. GPL version 3. Differences from the GPL[edit]The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter allows the work to be linked with (in the case of a library, "used by") a non- (L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is free software or proprietary software.[1] The non- (L)GPLed program can then be distributed under any terms if it is not a derivative work. If it is a derivative work, then the program's terms must allow for "modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." Whether a work that uses an LGPL program is a derivative work or not is a legal issue. A standalone executable that dynamically links to a library through a . LGPL. It would fall under the definition of a "work that uses the Library". Paragraph 5 of the LGPL version 2. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. Essentially, if it is a "work that uses the library", then it must be possible for the software to be linked with a newer version of the LGPL- covered program. The most commonly used method for doing so is to use "a suitable shared library mechanism for linking". Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided.[2]Compatibility[edit]One feature of the LGPL is the permission to relicense under the GPL any piece of software which is received under the LGPL (see section 3 of the LGPL version 2. LGPL version 3). This feature allows for direct reuse of LGPLed code in GPLed libraries and applications. Version 3 of the LGPL is not inherently compatible with version 2 of the GPL. However, works using the latter that have given permission to use a later version of the GPL are compatible: [3] a work released under the GPLv. LGPL version 3 library, with the combined work as a whole falling under the terms of the GPLv. LGPL for libraries[edit]The former name "GNU Library General Public License" gave some the impression that the FSF recommended software libraries use the LGPL and that programs use the GPL. In February 1. 99. GNU Project leader Richard Stallman wrote the essay Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library explaining that the LGPL had not been deprecated, but that one should not necessarily use the LGPL for all libraries: Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy.. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it.. When a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries.. Lesser GPL for that library.[1]Stallman and the FSF sometimes advocate licenses even less restrictive than the LGPL as a matter of strategy. A prominent example was Stallman's endorsement of the use of a BSD- style license by the Vorbis project for use in its libraries.[5]Programming language specifications[edit]The license uses terminology which is mainly intended for applications written in the C programming language or its family. Franz Inc. published its own preamble to the license to clarify terminology in the Lisp context. LGPL with this preamble is sometimes referred as LLGPL.[6]In addition, Ada has a special feature, generics, which may prompt the use of GNAT Modified General Public License: it allows code to link against or instantiate GMGPL- covered units without the code itself becoming covered by the GPL. C++ templates and header- only libraries have the same problem as Ada generics. Version 3 of the LGPL addresses such cases in section 3.[7]Class inheritance[edit]Some concern has risen about the suitability of object- oriented classes in LGPL'd being inherited by non- (L)GPL code. Clarification is given on the official GNU website: The LGPL does not contain special provisions for inheritance, because none are needed. Inheritance creates derivative works in the same way as traditional linking, and the LGPL permits this type of derivative work in the same way as it permits ordinary function calls.[8]See also[edit]References[edit]External links[edit].
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |