Project: DomainPatrol (Managed by Peter Narlund, anders.nygren@infoware.se)
 | 
 | |
| Subject | LGPL restrictions |
| Created | 10/01/2007 12:36 PM by Doug Finner. |
| Modified | <none> by <none>. |
How about a legal issue?
From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two modules into one program"?
Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program.
Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.
>>> What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). <<<
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
....end of quoted text....
IANAL but the crux of the <at least one> issue lies in this part of the LGPL. If the open source bit can't work without the closed source bit, you can't use the LGPL and need to rethink how you're offering the open source part of the application.
Also, it's not about the 'free as in free beer' aspect that is at issue; it's the 'free as in free speech' part that is in question. Charge or don't charge for any of the code, the money is not the issue. If you're doing open source, it means open the source code.
Doug
|
Feedback
Check out other projects
Switch to project: 