On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 15:38 -0500, ryan woodsmall wrote: > The prime difference between the GPL and the LGPL is the definition of > derivative work - namely, the "L" in LGPL originally stood for > "library," now amended to "lesser." With the LGPL, simply linking to > an LGPL'ed library does not taint the software you've written, causing > it to become LGPL as well; the GPL license is not as liberal in this regard, though there are linking exceptions in some cases. As long as you release any modified LGPL source, you should theoretically be safe and abiding by the terms of the LGPL without license taint on your custom software. Again, IANAL. > > Additionally, don't confuse Free Software licenses with being > anti-capitalist or anti-commercial. The GPL, LGPL, etc., are > pro-freedom: do what you will with the software, just allow others > to do the same. The LGPL is a decent middle-ground between the > extremely permissive licenses like BSD/MIT and hard-copyleft licenses > like the GPL/Create Commons ShareAlike. This group, where the majority of members don't understand Open Source Software licensing because, as users, they have no need to do so, is the wrong place to ask this question. Instead, you should read the GPL and LGPL licenses, which are fairly short and understandable. You can find them here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses IIRC the Apache Foundation licenses are similar in intent to the LGPL: you can distribute code with either license as parts of larger (commercial) works without this affecting the type of license you are required to use for your own work. This is why the LGPL and Apache licenses are preferred for libraries, plugins, etc. which are normally used as an unmodified component of a larger work. Martin
