Talk:GNU Lesser General Public License

message: Does anyone know whether one can modify rendering of an LGPL portlet in... say an JSP page (from existing LGPL project) w/o having to release the whole thing.
Also if one is providing a web-based service using LGPL code, specifically, modifying JSP pages - what implications does it have on the overall application as service?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.241.230 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  JSP/Portlets/ETC 

message: the last line of the LGPL section, referring to code that has been returned to full GPL, said that it is "useful to prevent software from going commercial."  This is repeating a myth and was removed.  ref stallman on GPL 2000
:Looks good. Belorn (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Fallacious Statement

message: I commented this out: "Another major difference is that derivative works (which are not GPLed) must be software libraries." Where in the text of the license does it say that? Versions of OpenOffice.org created under the LGPL (I really doubt Ximian is using the SISSL!) aren't software libraries - David Gerard 20:08, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment out

message: This feature is useful if one wants to create a version of the code that software companies cannot use in proprietary software products.
I believe this section is just plain wrong. The GPL can be used in "proprietary software" but the company must make the source code accessible to the public. Therefore, this section needs to be rewritten. --Mecanismo 13:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed. 

message: I removed this:
[About section 3, the GPL relicensing clause.] It is also necessary to ensure that the LGPL is "GPL-compatible", so that GPL-covered programs can use LGPL-covered libraries.
This is not true; the LGPL would allow a linked binary to be distributed under the GPL, so it is GPL-compatible. The clause is there to allow the reuse of code from LGPL libraries, in libraries or applications that are under the GPL. That is, straight reuse of code in the application, not linking.
Tim 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPL compatibility 

message: Sorry, but no matter how hard I try and read the article (or the actual documents), I don't quite get whether or not it's allowed to use an image licensed with the GNU lesser general public license for, for example, a homepage? Mackan 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody? Please. Mackan 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be allowed. You can always ask the image's copyright holder. —tedp 15:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Use is always allowed, for any purpose. Chris Cunningham 15:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about certain forms of distribution? If I create a huge piece of software, and it includes a few LGPLed icons, can I distribute my software under a commercial, proprietary license? 190.46.200.141 (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes you can. One of the simplified explanations I have heard is that GPL is contagious, LGPL is not. The only time software using LGPL code has to be LGPL as well is if it is a derived work; that is, if you modify LGPL code, or cut-and-paste construct a new program based on LGPL code, then those modifications have to be licensed under the LGPL. In the case of your icon example, when you distribute it, the icons would have to be distributed in a form such that they could be replaced by the end-user with a more recent version of the icon. Basically, use of LGPL'd icons would be irrelevant to the rest of your project. As far as the intricacies of the license go, images are not a very good example to use, because there is not the same notion of "source code" as there is with a C program. Whenever you distribute an image, you are also distributing it's source code, so you are automatically complying with the provisions of the LGPL regardless of what is distributed along with it. Kinda long-winded, but hope that clears things up.--66.102.196.44 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Images licensed under GPL or LGPL can be used on a home page; however, according to a strict reading of the GPL or LGPL, you would theoretically also have to distribute a copy of the GPL or LGPL license along with the image, or provide a link to the text of the GPL or LGPL; that is, according to the terms of the GPL/LGPL, distributing the image alone does not “automatically comply[] with the provisions of the LGPL” as claimed above, unless you also include the text of the license itself (or a link to it).  Since this is often inconvenient and is often just a pain in practice, it is probably sufficient just to include a comment citing the source of the image and a caption such as “(licensed under <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/{gpl,lgpl,fdl}.html">{GPL,LGPL,FDL}</a>).”  Hope this helps.  —Technion (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Free to use for homepages?

message: I read the article and I don't understand what it means if piece of software is under this licence. As if am I allowed to use it? And what are the restrictions and constrains.--Cliff 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use the software for any purpose. You can link it with binaries you distribute so long as you (a) impose no addition restrictions on use or redistribution of the LGPL code) and (b) include the license terms with the code you link to. If you actually modify any of the LGPL code, you must make your modifications available under the terms of the LGPL. Chris Cunningham 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added your statement to the article. Thanks a lot for that explanation, that's what I wanted to hear since I could understand so how exactly is this different from normal GPL and BSD.--Cliff 18:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that the article (up till Dec 2015 - and beyond, since the top part is locked) contradicts the above in one place (yet the above from Thumperward IS correct.) The article (up till Dec 2015 and beyond) reads "it only guarantees the freedom of modification for components licensed under the LGPL, but not for any proprietary components." Actually, the truth is somewhat the reverse - modification of LGPL components IS restricted, but your added components are NOT - they free of any restriction or seizure by the LGPL terms. Specifically, you can't modify the LGPL code and keep those modifications private; but you can modify a program or OS etc by using your own components together with LGPL components and still keep those proprietary or secret or both. Whereas with GPL, if you add your own components to the Linux kernel and distribute that, say, The GPL now owns that code, too. Equally the LGPL guarantees you freedom to create using components licensed to you by others under any licenses whatsoever, without demanding the release of that code under GPL or LGPL. I was going to edit that in, but instead the error will remain, in the locked text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.139.194 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Licence it self?

message: This article needs an update, LGPLv3 has already been released since June 29, 2007. I'm not good enough at licences to edit it so could please anyone else do it ? Bertvandepoel 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FSF doesn't seem to have a page on the changes that were made in the LGPLv3. The text is vastly different and much shorter, but it doesn't seem to have any of the controversial provisions that the GPLv3 was all about. I'll see if I can find any sources discussing the changes. Nasarius 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GPL v3 is raising a shitstorm. I don't quite understand it enough to write about it myself but I'm guessing it should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.71.179 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: LGPLv3 is now just a patch for GPLv3, referring to it and stating the differences, because the difference is vastly shorter than the whole licence. --AVRS (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: update to LGPLv3

message: Is it really necessary to bold the passages in the "Differences from the GPL" section? I find it a little pedantic and off-putting to the reader. Anyone opposed to removing the bold? --Ronocdh (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting complaints

message: ? --76.200.148.120 (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who created the V3 logo 

message: So does this mean that lets say I use Pygame wich is licensed under (GNU Lesser General Public License), and make a game. does that mean the game must only be copyrighted under GNU Lesser General Public License or any other GNU license, or can it be placed under our own work or something? Gman124 talk 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For information about GNU Lesser General Public License, please read about that article. Short answer: no, the resulting work do not need to be under the LGPL. Belorn (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Licensing

message: The LGPL purports to allow some situations which are prohibited by the GPL, but it is not clear that those situations are cases of infringement. Opinions on this vary. (This topic is covered in the GPL article from several angles.)
The question is, has this ever been challenged in a court case and what was the decision? Has there been a case revolving around the defendant using GPL-ed code as in a way that would fully conform to the LGPL, and what was the decision?
KazKylheku (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the difference between GPL and LGPL ever tested in court? 

message: The section jumps from sections history to differences. In other words it has no  explanation what lpgpl actually is. In particular what lpgpl obliges the distributor of a program to do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:981:7478:1:3D46:34D5:6B77:57D (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lgpl is not explained 

message: adult-filter-dns.cleanbrowsing.org 37.239.84.7 (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  adult-filter-dns.cleanbrowsing.org