My understanding is that a program can dynamically link to an LGPL library and its header may possibly be modified Along with, without the program can be included for release under LGGL, but any modification in the source code to be created in the dynamic library should be released under the LGPL.
Actually, it is the people without any restriction of usage , but they must contribute to any change . I would like to release the C ++ library which I wrote as FOSS, and I would like to license it in the same soul: people use code it Without using it, but use it to leave any change . However, LGPL is not suitable for me because my library is fully header (this is a template library). A header only C ++ library is under its LGPL3 license There is useful information about it. Another option is license, it is similar to LGPL, but it is a file based license: Unless you make any changes to them, you will be able to access Usage licensed files Can in any way do. If you do, then you have to share those changes (only) One benefit on LGPL is that you can link the CDDL libraries without sharing anything (of course it is irrelevant in this case, because your Library is the only header). One disadvantage is that it is incompatible with the GPL license (see under MPL license). See anything.
Comments
Post a Comment