Page 1 of 1
LGPL License
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:45 pm
by zecster
I always have a hard time understanding part 4 section c which states:
"For a Combined Work that displays copyright notices during execution, include the copyright notice for the Library among these notices, as well as a reference directing the user to the copies of the GNU GPL and this license document."
So lets say i build an web application with 3 LGPL libraries. Now i want to display the name of the application and that is it coprighted by me on the footer(like a lot of applications), now does this mean i have to also include the LGPL libraries i used and that they are copyrighted the their owners too on the footer.
Re: LGPL License
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:58 pm
by zecster
anyone?
Re: LGPL License
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:27 pm
by Christopher
Yes, you need to display all copyrights.
Re: LGPL License
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:38 pm
by Chris Corbyn
But personally I don't care, provided you leave Swift Mailer with it's LICENSE file (and comments in the head of the file) I'm happy. What would bother me is people removing the LICENSE and the comments as if the code was written by themselves and they have rights to it.
Re: LGPL License
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:29 am
by zecster
do i actually need to display all the copyrights on the footer with mine on every page or could i just have my copyright on the bottom of every page and then also have a "about" link on the footer too and that page would should of the other copyright notices and not be in breach of the LGPL license. I just ask because this is how sugar does it and no one has complained(that i heard of) and they use smarty and phpmailer both which are under LGPL licenses?
I would never removed the comments that include copyright information from and source code and include a file of each libraries i use(which i am trying to keep at a minimum) I am just building a framework and the only piece I don't have and don't want to write is a email helper class but i also don't want to force the people who might use my framework to be required to show any copyright notices besides their own.
@Chris Corbyn: if all you care about is that the license remain intact with you code and the license file is included why not dual license is under the LGPL and MIT/BSD? THE MIT/BSD license do exactly what you care about and don't not limit the programmer in any way. I just don't see what the LGPL license does that the MIT/BSD license does not do besides allowing the code to be used in GPL software(which i believe the MIT/BSD licenses are not compatible). I am all for open source however the GNU "open source" definition is not mine. Open source to me is that the code is provide as-is and you can do whatever you want with it. You can build off it and keep it open source or build off it and make your version closed source. The GPL flat out prevents this from happening and the LGPL is a bit confusing is what must be done in order to follow this license. I am just curious what made you choose the LGPL license over the MIT/BSD license?
Re: LGPL License
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:33 am
by Chris Corbyn
To put it simply, I'm a lazy programmer and don't know much about the ins and outs of each license

. The main reason for choosing LGPL (switching to v3 with the next version) was because I thought it would be the most widely known and therefore lead to a higher uptake of users. I *need* to start looking at dual licensing now though since the next version of Swift will be split into two editions - a free version (the updated version of what you're using now) and a paid version (full of enterprise features and tools)... the paid version is an extension of the free version and thus needs a commercial license, and the LGPL on the free bits.
Unfortunately I've not had a lot of time to throw into the project over the past couple of months due to general life being very hectic! It's coming though

Re: LGPL License
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:44 am
by zecster
Sounds good. Well it would be cool if you released the free version also under a MIT/BSD license but also long as you are not going to try to screw me I will for the time being use the swiftmailer in my framework and just leave the copyright file the headers in the files, al long that is ok with you.