1

Suppose I have Project X under closed source. It references/links to component Y which is LGPL, we make modifications to component Y

1) We release Project X binaries with the source to the modified component Y

OR

2) We contribute component Y modifications back upstream (to the original author(s)) and release Project X binaries without component Y source.

Does any of these scenarios comply with the LGPL?

Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski
  • 8,047
  • 1
  • 30
  • 37
jumpinjackie
  • 2,387
  • 4
  • 22
  • 26
  • 3
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about licensing or legal issues, not programming or software development. [See here](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/274963/questions-about-licensing/274964#274964) for details, and the [help] for more. – JasonMArcher Jun 03 '15 at 04:12

2 Answers2

3

1) is fine.

2) is not: you have to distribute y source (or at least a written offer to do so). Your users would have a hard time looking for your modification in depths of upstream patch repository (a bug tracker, whatever).

Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski
  • 8,047
  • 1
  • 30
  • 37
  • There's also no way of guaranteeing the patch is accepted... If you wait till it IS, then I'd say that 2 is ok (you are no longer distributing a modified version) – Matthew Scharley Jul 01 '09 at 08:18
  • 2
    Even if you distribute vanilla version, you still need to distribute it with sources (or a written offer to do so upon request). – Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Jul 01 '09 at 08:22
  • 1
    It would be fine if you didn't distribute the library, but made users go and download it from upstream… but that would be a horrible experience. Offering to distribute the source is far simpler. – Quentin Apr 03 '10 at 08:47
  • @David: LGPL sends the reader to GPL section 6. 6.d) states that even if the source code is not on your server, you are still responsible for making sure that the source code is available on this third-party server. – Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Apr 03 '10 at 09:26
  • I think you misunderstand. When I say "didn't distribute the library" I meant "the library" not "the source code to the library". – Quentin Apr 03 '10 at 10:18
0

Option (1) is certainly OK. Option (2) is probably not, because there is no real way of "contributing modifications upstream".