Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Searching for the Correct License

Posted by Cliff on from the pesky-but-necessary-legalities-department dept.

mchappee asks: "I'm about to release an Open Source software package for Linux. I'd like to have the code covered under the GPL, but I cannot because it links to commercial libraries. There are lots of Open Source licenses out there, but time and again I see people and companies being attacked for choosing the wrong one. So I ask you, the nerds, to enlighten me. What license will protect my code and ensure that it will always remain Open Source, yet will allow me to link to commercial libraries? "

10 comments

  1. LGPL by dysprosium · · Score: 1

    Use the LGPL, that's what it's there for.

    btw, keep in mind what happened when KDE did this. A free program (especially a good one) which requires non-free libraries is likely to cause a lot of problems with users. You may want to try and find a free library which fills a similar function to the non-free one you are currently using.

    Dysprosium

  2. LGPL or GPL with exception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the previous poster stated, you should probably use the LGPL. If you want a tighter license, release your code under two licenses: the plain GPL, and GPL with an exception for the commercial product. This means people will be able to distribute binaries of your product, and also be able to use your source in other GPLed software. (the LGPL would allow this as well)

    1. Re:LGPL or GPL with exception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not go w/ a bsd license, at least for the parts that are not commercial? (not sure if you can include commercial utils, but I bet you can). it is less nauseatingly infective and retarded than the gpl.

    2. Re:LGPL or GPL with exception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Ahem. Did you miss this part?

      > What license will protect my code and ensure that it will always remain Open Source

    3. Re:LGPL or GPL with exception by Arandir · · Score: 2

      The BSD will keep the code Open Source, it just doesn't guarantee that any code forks will be Open as well.

      There has yet to be an example of a Free BSD program superseded by a nonfree derivitive. BSDI may be out there, but so are FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD.

      However, the author may have wished for something other than what he stated, namely that his code would stay out of proprietary hands entirely. This is a completely different kettle of fish. In this case Artistic, QPL or MPL may be a better choice.

      But since he is using a proprietary library, it seems to me that common courtesy would allow the proprietary library's developer access to his code as well. It would be quite rude to say "I'm using your code but you can't use mine."

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  3. LGPL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LGPL is the way to go. Personally, i'd just hack whatever functionality is required using the standard C library or GTK if GUIs are required and release the code under the GPL without linking to a commercial library. ask yourself if the commercial stuff really offers fucntionality which cannot be duplicated with any existing GPLed library. Something like MOTIF (comemrcial) can be replaced pretty well with LessTIF (GPLed) with a simple recompile (no code rewrite required).

  4. OpenLDAP by Tyler+Forge · · Score: 1

    I like the OpenLDAP license. It protects you, it
    protects your code, it mixes well with licensed
    source.

    1. Re:OpenLDAP by Tyler+Forge · · Score: 1

      Oops, forgot the url.
      http://www.openldap.org/software/release/license .html

  5. why so few comments? by maphew · · Score: 1

    Why so few comments to an important question like this?

    Maybe it should be reposted. I simply don't believe there is so little interest in this question.

  6. Just about any Free license will do by Arandir · · Score: 2

    If you are dynamically linking to the library, then the GPL can still be used if you define its terms narrowly. The LGPL is not appropriate since it is for writing libraries, not linking to them, though it could still work.

    Otherwise, ANY OTHER Free Software license will work, because it is only the GPL has has restrictions on distributing mixed code. BSD, Artistic, MPL, QPL will all do fine.

    The QPL is probably closest to what you want, but modification to the code need to be separate from the code. This won't affect you, but will severely limit the ability of people to fork your code. As with the GPL, you can always include an "exception" to allow distribution of modifications as a full package to facilitate forking.

    The Artistic license is also a good choice. It's almost like a cross between the GPL and the BSD. The project can fork, but the forks must use a different name to avoid user confusion.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned