Page 1 of 1
(L)GPL?
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:04 pm
by uniQ
ROS is GPL, but when making contributions, everyone seems to say that LGPL is better for the individual contributions. Why (is) this?
-uniQ
Re: (L)GPL?
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:50 pm
by Gasmann
uniQ wrote:ROS is GPL, but when making contributions, everyone seems to say that LGPL is better for the individual contributions. Why (is) this?
-uniQ
As far as I understand the LGPL only makes it possible to use the project in commercial software, but maybe I'm wrong.
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:53 pm
by SirTalon
LGPLs main difference from GPL is that non open source (non GPL/LGPL/etc), can not link against it (like it can't be used as a library).
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:43 pm
by e7
A DLL, licensed under the terms of LGPL can be used by other programs like MSOffice. If the DLL is licensed under GPL and MSOffice use it, MSOffice must be GPL too.
Or you can say if you would say it extremly: If you write a GPL-Macro in MSOffice, MSOffice must be GPL
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:39 am
by uniQ
But why is licensing contributions as LGPL preferred when ROS is GPL to begin with?
-uniQ
LGPL
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:24 am
by sedwards
It needs to be LGPL so we can share code with Wine. 3rd party software can be licensed anyway it wants as it does not use our SDK/DDK to build. Even if they did our SDK and DDK is public domain so the only time someone must GPL or LGPL the application is if they directly use our source code in that application.
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:51 am
by Epmak
uniQ wrote:But why is licensing contributions as LGPL preferred when ROS is GPL to begin with?
Not sure but why just not contribute code related to wine under 2 licenses:
GPL & LGPL