[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Confused about LGPL terms - can you help?

From: Byron A Jeff
Subject: Re: Confused about LGPL terms - can you help?
Date: 24 Nov 2006 14:08:51 -0500

In article <>,
 <> wrote:

Sorry I'm late to this.

>I read the LGPL terms here:

>I would like to use an LGPL library for a commercial (and not open
>source) program I am writing.

The primary difference between the GPL and LGPL is that you can use
it in commercial projects.

>I intend to use that library by *dynamically* linking to it (as a
>Windows DLL). That is, the library will remain completely separate and
>unmodified (the way I originally downloaded it).

Then you should be in good shape. Note that if you needed to change
the library, then you'd have to make available the source to those

>Obviously, if I need to link to it, even dynamically, I need to place
>#includes to key header files of that library (i.e. those that export
>the functions prototypes and #defines) in a file of my own source code.

Incidental code. It doesn't change the status of your code.

>My question is: Under such circumstances, will I be obliged by the
>license to make the source code of *my program* ( = "trade secret")
>available to the customer?

No. The LGPL has a few basic tenets:

1) Any changes to the library itself is subject to GPL terms.

2) The end user of the library must hvae the ability to update the LGPL
library. Since it's an unmodifed DLL, an end user can simply update the DLL.

3) Other than the above the LGPL makes no claims upon code that uses the

In short, you are planning on using it exactly as intended.

>If so, how is LPGL different from GPL?

See above. 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]