Can I use LPGL3 for library and Apache 2 for “main()”?Can I link a Apache 2.0 library into software under GPLv2?Open source licensing with extra restriction clauseHow is the LGPL different from the GPL with a class path exception?Keeping contributions and allowing free use of libraries. i.e. Complex licencing issuePublishing Java project with LGPL licensed moduleDiscord bot and Apache LicenseLicense to use for smaller GitHub reposCan I use bits of source from another library in an original work without having to worry about license issues?Are there legal reasons blocking the use of Apache 2 License in FranceCan I use Apache 2.0 licensed libraries with AGPL licensed libraries?
How does jetBlue determine its boarding order?
What calendar would the Saturn nation use?
Test whether a string is in a list with variable
How to increase row height of a table and vertically "align middle"?
Game artist computer workstation set-up – is this overkill?
Antivirus for Ubuntu 18.04
My C Drive is full without reason
Is there any optimization for thread safety in for loop of Java?
Convert Numbers To Emoji Math
Gift for mentor after his thesis defense?
HTML folder located within IOS Image file?
Why doesn't a particle exert force on itself?
How is it believable that Euron could so easily pull off this ambush?
How large is a Globe of Invulnerability cast by a Large creature?
Crime rates in a post-scarcity economy
Scaling rounded rectangles in Illustrator
Why can’t you see at the start of the Big Bang?
What did Varys actually mean?
why it is 2>&1 and not 2>>&1 to append to a log file
Is there a reason why Turkey took the Balkan territories of the Ottoman Empire, instead of Greece or another of the Balkan states?
How does "politician" work as a job/career?
Clauses with 3 infinitives at the end
How can I test a shell script in a "safe environment" to avoid harm to my computer?
What detail can Hubble see on Mars?
Can I use LPGL3 for library and Apache 2 for “main()”?
Can I link a Apache 2.0 library into software under GPLv2?Open source licensing with extra restriction clauseHow is the LGPL different from the GPL with a class path exception?Keeping contributions and allowing free use of libraries. i.e. Complex licencing issuePublishing Java project with LGPL licensed moduleDiscord bot and Apache LicenseLicense to use for smaller GitHub reposCan I use bits of source from another library in an original work without having to worry about license issues?Are there legal reasons blocking the use of Apache 2 License in FranceCan I use Apache 2.0 licensed libraries with AGPL licensed libraries?
My project is a command which is split in library modules (the logic) and a "main" module, which glues my lib modules to make the CLI command.
I don't really care about what people can write with the lib or the main module, but I want people to be forced to publish any modification they make to the lib, so I though I could double-license my project with LGPL3 + Apache2, the LPGL3 would be for lib modules. Would this be feasible? Would this result in what I described?
license-recommendation apache-2.0 lgpl
asked 8 hours ago
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
161
New contributor
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
My project is a command which is split in library modules (the logic) and a "main" module, which glues my lib modules to make the CLI command.
I don't really care about what people can write with the lib or the main module, but I want people to be forced to publish any modification they make to the lib, so I though I could double-license my project with LGPL3 + Apache2, the LPGL3 would be for lib modules. Would this be feasible? Would this result in what I described?
license-recommendation apache-2.0 lgpl
asked 8 hours ago
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
161
New contributor
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
One obvious question: Is the main() really complicated enough to need a separate license? If it's "just" argv[] parsing plus function dispatch, then maybe it would be simpler to license it under the same license as the core lib. Anyone can just re-implement those things on their own anyway.
– Kevin
6 hours ago
It's a collection of subcommands actually, but they're not complicated at all. I though to use a double license since the "L" in LGPL usually stands for "library"...
– LivingSilver94
6 hours ago
Yeah, just license your program as Apache2. As long as you provide the source code of the LGPL library that you use (or just dynamically link to it), then you'll be fine.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
3 hours ago
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than themainfile.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
add a comment |
My project is a command which is split in library modules (the logic) and a "main" module, which glues my lib modules to make the CLI command.
I don't really care about what people can write with the lib or the main module, but I want people to be forced to publish any modification they make to the lib, so I though I could double-license my project with LGPL3 + Apache2, the LPGL3 would be for lib modules. Would this be feasible? Would this result in what I described?
license-recommendation apache-2.0 lgpl
asked 8 hours ago
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
161
New contributor
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
My project is a command which is split in library modules (the logic) and a "main" module, which glues my lib modules to make the CLI command.
I don't really care about what people can write with the lib or the main module, but I want people to be forced to publish any modification they make to the lib, so I though I could double-license my project with LGPL3 + Apache2, the LPGL3 would be for lib modules. Would this be feasible? Would this result in what I described?
license-recommendation apache-2.0 lgpl
license-recommendation apache-2.0 lgpl
asked 8 hours ago
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
161
New contributor
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
161
New contributor
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
161
New contributor
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
161
asked 8 hours ago
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
161
161
New contributor
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
One obvious question: Is the main() really complicated enough to need a separate license? If it's "just" argv[] parsing plus function dispatch, then maybe it would be simpler to license it under the same license as the core lib. Anyone can just re-implement those things on their own anyway.
– Kevin
6 hours ago
It's a collection of subcommands actually, but they're not complicated at all. I though to use a double license since the "L" in LGPL usually stands for "library"...
– LivingSilver94
6 hours ago
Yeah, just license your program as Apache2. As long as you provide the source code of the LGPL library that you use (or just dynamically link to it), then you'll be fine.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
3 hours ago
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than themainfile.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
add a comment |
One obvious question: Is the main() really complicated enough to need a separate license? If it's "just" argv[] parsing plus function dispatch, then maybe it would be simpler to license it under the same license as the core lib. Anyone can just re-implement those things on their own anyway.
– Kevin
6 hours ago
It's a collection of subcommands actually, but they're not complicated at all. I though to use a double license since the "L" in LGPL usually stands for "library"...
– LivingSilver94
6 hours ago
Yeah, just license your program as Apache2. As long as you provide the source code of the LGPL library that you use (or just dynamically link to it), then you'll be fine.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
3 hours ago
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than themainfile.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
One obvious question: Is the main() really complicated enough to need a separate license? If it's "just" argv[] parsing plus function dispatch, then maybe it would be simpler to license it under the same license as the core lib. Anyone can just re-implement those things on their own anyway.
– Kevin
6 hours ago
One obvious question: Is the main() really complicated enough to need a separate license? If it's "just" argv[] parsing plus function dispatch, then maybe it would be simpler to license it under the same license as the core lib. Anyone can just re-implement those things on their own anyway.
– Kevin
6 hours ago
It's a collection of subcommands actually, but they're not complicated at all. I though to use a double license since the "L" in LGPL usually stands for "library"...
– LivingSilver94
6 hours ago
It's a collection of subcommands actually, but they're not complicated at all. I though to use a double license since the "L" in LGPL usually stands for "library"...
– LivingSilver94
6 hours ago
Yeah, just license your program as Apache2. As long as you provide the source code of the LGPL library that you use (or just dynamically link to it), then you'll be fine.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
Yeah, just license your program as Apache2. As long as you provide the source code of the LGPL library that you use (or just dynamically link to it), then you'll be fine.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
3 hours ago
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than the
main file.– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than the
main file.– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Sure, you can use such a construction. However, it would be much simpler if you license the command line wrapper under the LGPL as well.
The “L” in LGPL officially does not stand for “library” but “lesser” than the main GPL: it scopes its protections to the LGPL-covered component, and does not affect the entire program. For the FSF this is a matter of strategy: they want to increase the amount of free software in the world. The LGPL does not help as much as the GPL because it doesn't entice users of the component to publish their software under a free license as well.
The LGPLv3 is implemented as a section 7 exception to the GPLv3. If the conditions in that exception do not trigger (linking), then it behaves effectively identical to the GPLv3. It is therefore perfectly fine to use it for applications as well.
answered 5 hours ago
amonamon
13.7k11536
It seems that the OP's intent is that modifications tomainshouldn't be required to be published. My understanding was that if you use the LGPL license then others can link to it but if they make changes to it then they must release those changes. Advising the OP to use the LGPL violates the OP's intent to avoid that requirement.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit No open source license (that I am aware of) requires changes to be published. GPL/LGPL only require that the corresponding source be provided alongside any binaries that are conveyed/distributed. It seems the main() will be fairly banal code, and it's probably not worth avoiding a copyleft license there if most code in the application is already under the LGPL.
– amon
3 hours ago
Sorry, that's what I meant, his intent was others being allowed to change themainand distribute the binary without source and suggesting copyleft violates that intent. But I agree that avoiding copyleft on that might not be worth it.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
add a comment |
@amon is mostly right, however my understanding is that you want others to make changes to main and not have to publish those changes upon distribution of the binary. In that case, license your main file as Apache2 (or something else that's permissive like BSD/MIT) and the library as LGPL.
Normally projects have a LICENSE file in the repository, however you might want to leave that out and then at the top of the files actually put the license for that file. Or you could have a LICENSE that explains the licensing of the project.
You could also split the project into the library portion and the executable portion that links to the library, or you could choose to license it all under a single license.
answered 3 hours ago
Greg SchmitGreg Schmit
1114
New contributor
Greg Schmit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8273%2fcan-i-use-lpgl3-for-library-and-apache-2-for-main%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sure, you can use such a construction. However, it would be much simpler if you license the command line wrapper under the LGPL as well.
The “L” in LGPL officially does not stand for “library” but “lesser” than the main GPL: it scopes its protections to the LGPL-covered component, and does not affect the entire program. For the FSF this is a matter of strategy: they want to increase the amount of free software in the world. The LGPL does not help as much as the GPL because it doesn't entice users of the component to publish their software under a free license as well.
The LGPLv3 is implemented as a section 7 exception to the GPLv3. If the conditions in that exception do not trigger (linking), then it behaves effectively identical to the GPLv3. It is therefore perfectly fine to use it for applications as well.
answered 5 hours ago
amonamon
13.7k11536
It seems that the OP's intent is that modifications tomainshouldn't be required to be published. My understanding was that if you use the LGPL license then others can link to it but if they make changes to it then they must release those changes. Advising the OP to use the LGPL violates the OP's intent to avoid that requirement.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit No open source license (that I am aware of) requires changes to be published. GPL/LGPL only require that the corresponding source be provided alongside any binaries that are conveyed/distributed. It seems the main() will be fairly banal code, and it's probably not worth avoiding a copyleft license there if most code in the application is already under the LGPL.
– amon
3 hours ago
Sorry, that's what I meant, his intent was others being allowed to change themainand distribute the binary without source and suggesting copyleft violates that intent. But I agree that avoiding copyleft on that might not be worth it.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Sure, you can use such a construction. However, it would be much simpler if you license the command line wrapper under the LGPL as well.
The “L” in LGPL officially does not stand for “library” but “lesser” than the main GPL: it scopes its protections to the LGPL-covered component, and does not affect the entire program. For the FSF this is a matter of strategy: they want to increase the amount of free software in the world. The LGPL does not help as much as the GPL because it doesn't entice users of the component to publish their software under a free license as well.
The LGPLv3 is implemented as a section 7 exception to the GPLv3. If the conditions in that exception do not trigger (linking), then it behaves effectively identical to the GPLv3. It is therefore perfectly fine to use it for applications as well.
answered 5 hours ago
amonamon
13.7k11536
It seems that the OP's intent is that modifications tomainshouldn't be required to be published. My understanding was that if you use the LGPL license then others can link to it but if they make changes to it then they must release those changes. Advising the OP to use the LGPL violates the OP's intent to avoid that requirement.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit No open source license (that I am aware of) requires changes to be published. GPL/LGPL only require that the corresponding source be provided alongside any binaries that are conveyed/distributed. It seems the main() will be fairly banal code, and it's probably not worth avoiding a copyleft license there if most code in the application is already under the LGPL.
– amon
3 hours ago
Sorry, that's what I meant, his intent was others being allowed to change themainand distribute the binary without source and suggesting copyleft violates that intent. But I agree that avoiding copyleft on that might not be worth it.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Sure, you can use such a construction. However, it would be much simpler if you license the command line wrapper under the LGPL as well.
The “L” in LGPL officially does not stand for “library” but “lesser” than the main GPL: it scopes its protections to the LGPL-covered component, and does not affect the entire program. For the FSF this is a matter of strategy: they want to increase the amount of free software in the world. The LGPL does not help as much as the GPL because it doesn't entice users of the component to publish their software under a free license as well.
The LGPLv3 is implemented as a section 7 exception to the GPLv3. If the conditions in that exception do not trigger (linking), then it behaves effectively identical to the GPLv3. It is therefore perfectly fine to use it for applications as well.
answered 5 hours ago
amonamon
13.7k11536
Sure, you can use such a construction. However, it would be much simpler if you license the command line wrapper under the LGPL as well.
The “L” in LGPL officially does not stand for “library” but “lesser” than the main GPL: it scopes its protections to the LGPL-covered component, and does not affect the entire program. For the FSF this is a matter of strategy: they want to increase the amount of free software in the world. The LGPL does not help as much as the GPL because it doesn't entice users of the component to publish their software under a free license as well.
The LGPLv3 is implemented as a section 7 exception to the GPLv3. If the conditions in that exception do not trigger (linking), then it behaves effectively identical to the GPLv3. It is therefore perfectly fine to use it for applications as well.
answered 5 hours ago
amonamon
13.7k11536
answered 5 hours ago
amonamon
13.7k11536
answered 5 hours ago
amonamon
13.7k11536
answered 5 hours ago
amonamon
13.7k11536
13.7k11536
It seems that the OP's intent is that modifications tomainshouldn't be required to be published. My understanding was that if you use the LGPL license then others can link to it but if they make changes to it then they must release those changes. Advising the OP to use the LGPL violates the OP's intent to avoid that requirement.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit No open source license (that I am aware of) requires changes to be published. GPL/LGPL only require that the corresponding source be provided alongside any binaries that are conveyed/distributed. It seems the main() will be fairly banal code, and it's probably not worth avoiding a copyleft license there if most code in the application is already under the LGPL.
– amon
3 hours ago
Sorry, that's what I meant, his intent was others being allowed to change themainand distribute the binary without source and suggesting copyleft violates that intent. But I agree that avoiding copyleft on that might not be worth it.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
add a comment |
It seems that the OP's intent is that modifications tomainshouldn't be required to be published. My understanding was that if you use the LGPL license then others can link to it but if they make changes to it then they must release those changes. Advising the OP to use the LGPL violates the OP's intent to avoid that requirement.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit No open source license (that I am aware of) requires changes to be published. GPL/LGPL only require that the corresponding source be provided alongside any binaries that are conveyed/distributed. It seems the main() will be fairly banal code, and it's probably not worth avoiding a copyleft license there if most code in the application is already under the LGPL.
– amon
3 hours ago
Sorry, that's what I meant, his intent was others being allowed to change themainand distribute the binary without source and suggesting copyleft violates that intent. But I agree that avoiding copyleft on that might not be worth it.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
It seems that the OP's intent is that modifications to
main shouldn't be required to be published. My understanding was that if you use the LGPL license then others can link to it but if they make changes to it then they must release those changes. Advising the OP to use the LGPL violates the OP's intent to avoid that requirement.– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
It seems that the OP's intent is that modifications to
main shouldn't be required to be published. My understanding was that if you use the LGPL license then others can link to it but if they make changes to it then they must release those changes. Advising the OP to use the LGPL violates the OP's intent to avoid that requirement.– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit No open source license (that I am aware of) requires changes to be published. GPL/LGPL only require that the corresponding source be provided alongside any binaries that are conveyed/distributed. It seems the main() will be fairly banal code, and it's probably not worth avoiding a copyleft license there if most code in the application is already under the LGPL.
– amon
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit No open source license (that I am aware of) requires changes to be published. GPL/LGPL only require that the corresponding source be provided alongside any binaries that are conveyed/distributed. It seems the main() will be fairly banal code, and it's probably not worth avoiding a copyleft license there if most code in the application is already under the LGPL.
– amon
3 hours ago
Sorry, that's what I meant, his intent was others being allowed to change the
main and distribute the binary without source and suggesting copyleft violates that intent. But I agree that avoiding copyleft on that might not be worth it.– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
Sorry, that's what I meant, his intent was others being allowed to change the
main and distribute the binary without source and suggesting copyleft violates that intent. But I agree that avoiding copyleft on that might not be worth it.– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
add a comment |
@amon is mostly right, however my understanding is that you want others to make changes to main and not have to publish those changes upon distribution of the binary. In that case, license your main file as Apache2 (or something else that's permissive like BSD/MIT) and the library as LGPL.
Normally projects have a LICENSE file in the repository, however you might want to leave that out and then at the top of the files actually put the license for that file. Or you could have a LICENSE that explains the licensing of the project.
You could also split the project into the library portion and the executable portion that links to the library, or you could choose to license it all under a single license.
answered 3 hours ago
Greg SchmitGreg Schmit
1114
New contributor
Greg Schmit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
@amon is mostly right, however my understanding is that you want others to make changes to main and not have to publish those changes upon distribution of the binary. In that case, license your main file as Apache2 (or something else that's permissive like BSD/MIT) and the library as LGPL.
Normally projects have a LICENSE file in the repository, however you might want to leave that out and then at the top of the files actually put the license for that file. Or you could have a LICENSE that explains the licensing of the project.
You could also split the project into the library portion and the executable portion that links to the library, or you could choose to license it all under a single license.
answered 3 hours ago
Greg SchmitGreg Schmit
1114
New contributor
Greg Schmit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
@amon is mostly right, however my understanding is that you want others to make changes to main and not have to publish those changes upon distribution of the binary. In that case, license your main file as Apache2 (or something else that's permissive like BSD/MIT) and the library as LGPL.
Normally projects have a LICENSE file in the repository, however you might want to leave that out and then at the top of the files actually put the license for that file. Or you could have a LICENSE that explains the licensing of the project.
You could also split the project into the library portion and the executable portion that links to the library, or you could choose to license it all under a single license.
answered 3 hours ago
Greg SchmitGreg Schmit
1114
New contributor
Greg Schmit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
@amon is mostly right, however my understanding is that you want others to make changes to main and not have to publish those changes upon distribution of the binary. In that case, license your main file as Apache2 (or something else that's permissive like BSD/MIT) and the library as LGPL.
Normally projects have a LICENSE file in the repository, however you might want to leave that out and then at the top of the files actually put the license for that file. Or you could have a LICENSE that explains the licensing of the project.
You could also split the project into the library portion and the executable portion that links to the library, or you could choose to license it all under a single license.
answered 3 hours ago
Greg SchmitGreg Schmit
1114
New contributor
Greg Schmit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Greg SchmitGreg Schmit
1114
New contributor
Greg Schmit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Greg SchmitGreg Schmit
1114
answered 3 hours ago
Greg SchmitGreg Schmit
1114
1114
New contributor
Greg Schmit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Greg Schmit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
LivingSilver94 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8273%2fcan-i-use-lpgl3-for-library-and-apache-2-for-main%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
One obvious question: Is the main() really complicated enough to need a separate license? If it's "just" argv[] parsing plus function dispatch, then maybe it would be simpler to license it under the same license as the core lib. Anyone can just re-implement those things on their own anyway.
– Kevin
6 hours ago
It's a collection of subcommands actually, but they're not complicated at all. I though to use a double license since the "L" in LGPL usually stands for "library"...
– LivingSilver94
6 hours ago
Yeah, just license your program as Apache2. As long as you provide the source code of the LGPL library that you use (or just dynamically link to it), then you'll be fine.
– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
3 hours ago
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than the
mainfile.– Greg Schmit
3 hours ago