Licensing: Difference between revisions

LGPL or (optionally) GPL. Object files linked to LGPL'ed code are unaffected

by the LGPL, but users must be able to link themselves (i.e., distribute

code).

[Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) License | http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5]:

sue you for breach of contract. The [Free Software Foundation | http://www.gnu.org]

requires you to present papers signed by your superiors before accepting your

 

What this means is, unless you are ''certain'' of your legal position, consider

into proprietary software, as you have to keep the "list of conditions" intact,

which would include the permission for redistribution. I've heard conflicting

 

=== LGPL ===

Also see the paragraph on (L)GPL versions below.

 

 

corresponds to an individual object file, module, etc., or a binary object file

for linking), and you want to integrate it in your project. (Usually by means

the source.

 

apart (as described below for LGPL'ed stuff), to avoid any misunderstandings as to

the BSD License applying to the ''whole'' of your project, including the right

 

You can use LGPL'ed sources, but projects not (L)GPL'ed themselves ''must keep

 

If you distribute binaries only, you ''must'' provide an ''unlinked'' version of

 

The question here is whether code written using X as tutorial material is

property" (company lawyer terminology). This heavily depends on what code

is involved, just how much of the code you've written is actually based