software licensing - gpl vs lgpl

[murraybiscuit]

i'm wanting to do a range of open source and closed source stuff. my idea is to do it free and foss first and then do some pay-for versions eventually. having only ever done web stuff, i haven't really had licensing issues before, but i understand that using third party libraries may be an issue especially if the licensing conflicts. how does it all work? afaik you can't change the license on a project half way through to proprietary if you've started with oss.

 

[icyrus]

i'm wanting to do a range of open source and closed source stuff. my idea is to do it free and foss first and then do some pay-for versions eventually. having only ever done web stuff, i haven't really had licensing issues before, but i understand that using third party libraries may be an issue especially if the licensing conflicts. how does it all work? afaik you can't change the license on a project half way through to proprietary if you've started with oss.

If your project uses a GPL library rather than LGPL, your project will need to be licensed under the GPL. Have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL

You should also have a quick look at multi-licensing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing

Also consider licenses like the BSD license rather than the GPL, as you will give you more flexibility in how you use the code later on.

 

[murraybiscuit]

thanks amigo. flip, this might take longer than i was hoping...

 

[icyrus]

thanks amigo. flip, this might take longer than i was hoping...

My personal preference is that all my code is licensed under the BSD license and I try to stick with libraries that have made that decision as well - when possible.

 

[MielieSpoor]

this is one topic that really bothers me also.

I have 2 commercial products that I should attach a software license to so a GPL license won't work...this type of document is not the easiest to come up with...

 

[Raithlin]

I'd rather use a LGPL'ed component than a GPL'ed one, but I agree - BSD licence is the way to go if you want to go commercial later.

Alternatively, use and release a separate library containing the offending code, then use that (where the licence permits, esp. LGPL) in your product. I think that's how LGPL works. With GPL the entire product has to be released under the GPL licence, IIRC.

void Edit() {
WikiPedia
Open Source License Comparison
Various Licenses and Comments about Them
KDE Licence comparison

Some interesting comments about other licences, like CPL, AFL, etc. Have fun!
}

 

[MyWorld]

this is one topic that really bothers me also.

I have 2 commercial products that I should attach a software license to so a GPL license won't work...this type of document is not the easiest to come up with...

Nope, GPL stipulates that the source be available to anyone and if you are going to keep your cards close to your chest you should look elsewhere.

What was not mentioned here is that there are more than one GPL version, with most people sticking to the more free GPLv2 than the more restricted GPLv3.
You can license your code GPLv2 and then later when you want to go "nasty" you can just cancel the project, leave the code in the public domain for someone else to use and copyright your own "nasty".
According to the GPLv2 you are allowed to do this with permission from the original owner, hence the Linux kernel is still GPLv2 and used in may propriety devices and software, the key being "with permission and consent from the owner!"

Download this white paper if you want to know more, really easy on the brain and nothing technical, straight forward:
http://linux-watch.com/files/misc/GPLv2_vs_GPLv3.pdf

BSD license:

In a nutshell, the BSD license is a very open license, allowing you do do practically anything with the software. It’s less restrictive than the GPL, but more restrictive than the Public Domain. There are only a couple precepts that must be adhered to, when using this license:

* You are free to redistribute the software, in binary or source form, as long as the copyright, conditions and disclaimer are present.
* You cannot use the name of the originating organization, or contributers, to promote derivatives of the software, without written consent.

If adhered to, you are free to modify, copy and redistribute BSD-licensed software in either source or binary form as you see fit. You are not required to return code or patches to the upstream BSD-licensed software. You are free to change the license, or charge for derivatives, of the software, be it commercial or proprietary.

BSD-licensed software is particularly attractive to organizations providing a service, such as GMail, or embedded applications, such as your mobile phone or stereo. The company/developer can use BSD-licensed software to produce binary applications or services, without releasing the source code.

No need to site a source, you can find this info anywhere, even on Wikipedia.

So it would seem that easiest way out is a BSD license for both of you.