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?
Are there variations of the regular runtimes of the Big-O-Notation?
Would encrypting a database protect against a compromised admin account?
Removing all characters except digits from clipboard
Why is PerfectForwardSecrecy considered OK, when it has same defects as salt-less password hashing?
Why was wildfire not used during the Battle of Winterfell?
Watching the game, having a puzzle
Why does increasing the sampling rate make implementing an anti-aliasing filter easier?
How to efficiently lower your karma
Was there a contingency plan in place if Little Boy failed to detonate?
Extending Kan fibrations, without using minimal fibrations
How can I avoid subordinates and coworkers leaving work until the last minute, then having no time for revisions?
Why do protein solutions have to be alkalised?
Should I pay on student loans in deferment or continue to snowball other debts?
Why do Thanos' punches not kill Captain America or at least cause some mortal injuries?
If a character drops a magic item that turns on/off, does that item turn off when they drop it?
Improving Sati-Sampajañña (situative wisdom)
How is CoreiX like Corei5, i7 is related to Haswell, Ivy Bridge?
My perfect evil overlord plan... or is it?
How to make a language evolve quickly?
Why does the Earth follow an elliptical trajectory rather than a parabolic one?
What was the notion of limit that Newton used?
Is ‘despite that’ right?
Which other programming languages apart from Python and predecessor are out there using indentation to define code blocks?
How to get a ellipse shaped node in Tikz Network?
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 May 6 at 14:35
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
211
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 May 6 at 14:35
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
211
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
May 6 at 16:29
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
May 6 at 17:07
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
May 6 at 19:33
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
May 6 at 19:34
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than themainfile.
– Greg Schmit
May 6 at 19:35
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 May 6 at 14:35
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
211
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 May 6 at 14:35
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
211
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 May 6 at 14:35
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
211
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 May 6 at 14:35
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
211
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 May 6 at 14:35
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
211
asked May 6 at 14:35
LivingSilver94LivingSilver94
211
211
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
May 6 at 16:29
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
May 6 at 17:07
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
May 6 at 19:33
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
May 6 at 19:34
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than themainfile.
– Greg Schmit
May 6 at 19:35
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
May 6 at 16:29
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
May 6 at 17:07
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
May 6 at 19:33
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
May 6 at 19:34
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than themainfile.
– Greg Schmit
May 6 at 19:35
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
May 6 at 16:29
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
May 6 at 16:29
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
May 6 at 17:07
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
May 6 at 17:07
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
May 6 at 19:33
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
May 6 at 19:33
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
May 6 at 19:34
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
May 6 at 19:34
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than the
main file.– Greg Schmit
May 6 at 19:35
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than the
main file.– Greg Schmit
May 6 at 19:35
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 May 6 at 17:28
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
May 6 at 19:31
@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
May 6 at 19:40
1
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
May 6 at 19:42
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 May 6 at 19:39
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 May 6 at 17:28
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
May 6 at 19:31
@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
May 6 at 19:40
1
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
May 6 at 19:42
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 May 6 at 17:28
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
May 6 at 19:31
@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
May 6 at 19:40
1
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
May 6 at 19:42
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 May 6 at 17:28
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 May 6 at 17:28
amonamon
13.7k11536
answered May 6 at 17:28
amonamon
13.7k11536
answered May 6 at 17:28
amonamon
13.7k11536
answered May 6 at 17:28
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
May 6 at 19:31
@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
May 6 at 19:40
1
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
May 6 at 19:42
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
May 6 at 19:31
@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
May 6 at 19:40
1
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
May 6 at 19:42
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
May 6 at 19:31
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
May 6 at 19:31
@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
May 6 at 19:40
@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
May 6 at 19:40
1
1
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
May 6 at 19:42
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
May 6 at 19:42
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 May 6 at 19:39
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 May 6 at 19:39
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 May 6 at 19:39
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 May 6 at 19:39
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 May 6 at 19:45
answered May 6 at 19:39
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 May 6 at 19:39
Greg SchmitGreg Schmit
1114
answered May 6 at 19:39
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
May 6 at 16:29
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
May 6 at 17:07
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
May 6 at 19:33
@GregSchmit no I don't use any LGPL library; it's my lib that I want to license.
– LivingSilver94
May 6 at 19:34
Oh, gotcha, that makes more sense. Then yeah you can absolutely license the library portion differently than the
mainfile.– Greg Schmit
May 6 at 19:35