[lug] To LGPL or not.

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Kelly" == Kelly Brock <krbrock at pacbell.net> writes:

Kelly> Let me first state the intentions:

Kelly> 3. Requirement to release all changes/additions back to the
Kelly> open source community, even if the system you work on is close
Kelly> sourced.  Ie- Required maintainance from all users.

Actually, the LGPL doesn't require this.  Neither does the GPL.

I think the simplest way to think about these licenses is that "the
source follows the executables".  So if someone uses your LGPL
library, they have to give sources of it to anybody they give the
binaries to.  But they *don't* have to give the sources to anybody who
asks, or to the library authors.

Kelly> 4. Ability to *supply* closed source binaries for use with such
Kelly> system as long as those binaries *ALWAYS* require no license
Kelly> fees etc and only if those systems supplied can be legally
Kelly> replaced with open source variants at a later date without
Kelly> patent issues etc..

The LGPL won't help you with enforcing no license fees.  I thought "no
commercial use" type licenses weren't really considered open source.

Kelly> With LGPL, if I decide to use it at work, it doesn't matter
Kelly> because yes I "can" use it legally without forcing our game to
Kelly> become open sourced.  But the other issues are the ones that
Kelly> make me question the LGPL license.

If you own the software, you can license it under multiple different
licenses.  So you could make it LGPL for the world and let your
employer use it in their game under different terms.

Protecting yourself here is important.  When I've switched jobs (a
very infrequent occurrence, lucky me) I've always made a list of my
own projects that my new employer can't claim any rights to.  If the
game industry is as rabid as you say, you probably want to get a
lawyer to help you.

Tom