3

I got a Java project I don't want to publish under a Gnu license. (MIT, but nevermind.)

As build management tool I use Maven, that generates a “jar-with-dependencies”. The project depends on gnu.getopt, licensed under the LGPL 2.

So my questions are:

  • Am I allowed to publish that “jar-with-dependencies” under another license than the LGPL? (Say, MIT, shareware …)
  • If not: How can I distribute executable JARs depending on LGPL code?

I do not

  • look for a replacement for gnu.getopt.
  • seek for answers like “consult your lawyer”.
  • want to be converted to the Gnu way of life …
Kijewski
  • 25,517
  • 12
  • 101
  • 143
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because [licensing advice is off-topic on Stack Overflow.](http://stackoverflow.com/help/on-topic) You may be able to get help on [Programmers Stack Exchange, but **read their faq carefully** before proceeding.](http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/7265/when-is-a-software-licensing-question-on-topic) – durron597 Jun 03 '15 at 16:59

2 Answers2

5

Haha, you don't have to be converted to the GNU way of life although I would highly recommend it :). You are in luck, the difference between the GPL and the LGPL (Lesser GPL) is that the LGPL basically allows you to do just what you are asking wheras the GPL does not. From the GNU rationale for not using the LGPL:

The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs.

GNU want to change all of their libraries to GPL eventually but, for now, if it says it uses the LGPL, you're good to go. If it had used the GNU licence, you would have to licence your software under a GNU-compliant licence. In fact, a quick search of this list reveals:

Expat License

This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License.

EDIT: Remember that IANAL! I have since found that you may not be able to licence under a compatible licence when including a GPL library: What does it mean to say a license is “compatible with the GPL?”

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Gyan aka Gary Buyn
  • 12,242
  • 2
  • 23
  • 26
  • I like GNU and everything the FSF did for the software engineering community. But enterprises like the Apache License better. :( – Kijewski May 22 '11 at 13:54
1

I do not [...] seek for answers like “consult your lawyer”

You shouldn't rely on non-qualified people for legal advice.

If you don't want to talk to a lawyer, do your own research and take your own risks. In this case, the language of the license is fairly clear and FSF provide extensive explanatory information. But you need to bear in mind that legal language does not always mean what a layman thinks it means ...

But if you are happy to ignore that advice...

My understanding is that LGPL means that you can use it with non-GPL code, provided that 1) you distribute source for any changes that you make to the library, and 2) keep the JAR file separate so that people can upgrade the library independently of your code.

I like GNU and everything the FSF did for the software engineering community. But enterprises like the Apache License better.

That may be so, but if they (enterprises) are willing to use Linux, etc then they can live with your code being GPL as well. And if they can't, they can afford to pay you some money for the privilege of embedding your code in their closed-source application.

On the other hand, you may have no problem with people using your code in that fashion.

Stephen C
  • 698,415
  • 94
  • 811
  • 1,216