Provide a network address of a location where the source code can be found. In all cases, the attribution and the license must be preserved. LGPL is used in many libraries, including the C libraries and ffmpeg. Non-copyleft licenses There are many different non-copyleft licenses where you can modify the code and keep the changes proprietary.
Kernel drivers are a gray area but most people think they do not have to be released as GPL code and the source can be kept closed. If you make modifications to the C library, ffmpeg or any other LGPL library, you must release the modified versions under the same license.
If you create an application that relies on LGPL libraries, then you can keep your application closed, but you must link dynamically with the LGPL libraries. If you make modifications to a non-copyleft licensed software, then you can can keep your modifications closed, but you must still credit the authors either on a web page or in a leaflet in the product box. Best Practices with Open Source Licenses Here are some steps to follow during the development life cycle: Before using a free software library, application or operating system, make sure the license matches your project constraints.
Make sure to keep a complete list of the free software packages you use, the original version you used and to keep your modifications and adaptations well-separated from the original version. Conform to the license requirements before shipping the product to the customers. Talk to a lawyer if your company can afford it.
As long as your program does not use open source code, it can remain closed source. Write your proprietary source code in a separate application and use some inter-process communication to interact with programs based on open source code.
Share this:. Some would say that the open source concept of software began when computing itself began, as programmers and developers shared freely their software so that they could all learn and help each other in a community type system.
Primarily, because modern day open source software is based on licenses , which is precisely what I am going to expand upon below. This could be classified as the first type of open source software as we know it today.
This license has no limits. You can copy it on your own server. You can develop your own software products and services, change code base, etc. The main and very import point, is that your have to release your work under the GNU GPL project, so that your software source code is totally open to everyone who wants to use it. Without going into detail, this is what can be considered as copyleft , which is totally different to copywrite.
In the case of copyleft licenses such as GPL, it gives anyone who receives the software, the right to reproduce, adapt, or distribute the software. Although there are various differences between BSD and GPL open source software, the main difference between the two is the copyleft issue.
Just a quick disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, so don't depend on my explanations on the licences here. All the usual disclaimers apply. You can find the legal text for the GPL here , but here's a quick summary of what it means. Basically, you're allowed to use, redistribute and change the software, but any changes you make must also be licensed under the GPL.
So that means you have to give everyone else the same rights as you got. If it solves the needs of others, they will jump in. The license doesn't really enter into that part of the equation. It's only about whether or not you want to make a call on what that community around your work looks like and evolves. You're very much forcing the argument by making it all about the attention of "large proprietary software companies".
But there are I didn't mean they care about recognition I meant, no community forms around their product, because a huge portion of the developers that would like to use it, can't.
I never said "large" companies. Small companies can't use GPL in their software either, if they want to sell their software. For-profit companies aren't evil, in fact many of them do a lot of good things, including contributing back to open source projects with time paid for by their closed source products.
I think the mindset of "all for-profit companies are evil" is a very way of thinking. There are a lot of for-profit companies that use GPL. I have one myself albeit a very, very small one. As for community - I think community is often more corresponding to usefulness of code, not license of code. That's why there is often a huge "community" around very useful proprietary code. To me, it's about choosing which kind of community you want and I want the kind that the GPL enables and protects.
I did say large.. Nursie on Feb 8, parent prev next [—]. The important thing to realise about the GPL's freedom is that it is not so much "freedom for the developer" as preserving "freedom of the user". To keep software in the ecosystem free and to allow any user to see the source code of a piece of software running on their computer. Of course I can see the value of both type of license and each has their place.
However, for a library which you might want to be used by commercial game developers etc. How so? I can still download the original BSD-licensed code without any loss. In the worst case the next guy will just start from wherever I started. And be thankful for that - who knows what else could have crept in there.
And no obligation to release all the other unrelated code. Apple too, but that's what the BSD license is for. You assume that the original code is still available, which might not be the case. In that case it's exactly the same as if Microsoft never used the code That's what would have happened if it were GPL code. Proprietary software vendors can't use GPL code, because there's no way they can use it without making their entire product GPL Nursie on Feb 8, root parent next [—].
In that specific case you are right. In this case it was to Linksys advantage to use GPL firmware, to the users advantage that more could be done with the device, and to the community's advantage because changes and improvements could be fed back to the general linux ecosystem.
Linksys sells hardware, not software, it's not a valid comparison. People can copy their software all they want - they still have to buy the hardware to run it on. No, because you could still get the code from Microsoft, assuming the original code would be gone for whatever reason. Commercial vendors could always make use of LGPL if they distribute the software. Unless they are using languages like Go. As for server side applications most vendors are just lechers.
They use the code because they don't pay anything for it and most never return anything back, regardless of the license being used. This is my Fortune experience. GPL operates on the premise that people are generally selfish and evil, and will never contribute back unless forced to. BSD operates on the premise that people are generally decent, and many though not all will contribute back on principle.
Quite to the contrary. I prefer GPL code and don't think people are generally selfish and evil. I do think that "the market" does that to people - It is often very profitable to be selfish and evil and the question is whether you have it in you to allow your fellow humans to fall into that trap or not.
And whether you think it's good for society that this mechanic of the market exerts so much influence. I have chosen against that. Might be foolish, but I think it's rather pragmatic. Didn't FreeBSD have some problem with fundraising recently? Did they end up contributing back? Yes, quite a bit. An example, FreeBSD recently switched from gcc to clang as their main compiler.
0コメント