![]()
WINDOWS STORE MY LIBRARY LICENSEOn the other hand, if you yourself convey the executable LGPL'd library along with your application, whether linked with statically or dynamically, you must also convey the library's sources, in one of the ways for which the LGPL provides.Īs far as I've understood, I've to use dynamic linking for libraries (in case for example user wants to replace the libraries),įFmpeg has several build configuration flags: depending on which flags and codecs are activate, the resulting license may be one of LGPL 2.1 or LGPL 3.0 or GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0. (2) If you dynamically link against an LGPL'd library already present on the user's computer, you need not convey the library's source. (1) If you statically link against an LGPL'd library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application. This is not correct and an alternative solution is possible (solution (0)).ĭoes the LGPL have different requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered work? ( #LGPLStaticVsDynamic)įor the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant version: v2, v2.1 or v3): LGPL is often known as the license which allows dynamic linking but all too often it is thought as the license which forces dynamic linking. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version.Īs you can see, I'm not inventing my claim. ![]() WINDOWS STORE MY LIBRARY CODEYou may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following:Ġ) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.ġ) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. Here is the relevant part of the license: 4. Thus, you cannot use a LGPL library in an iPhone app.ĮDIT: let me add some more details to convince you that I'm not merely giving an opinion. Note that the same applies to Google Play (a similar developer mode exists) but not to Apple Store (where you have to pay a fee to Apple to use such a mode). The user could use this mode to run their alternative build of your app and that would not contradict the terms of LGPL in any way. WINDOWS STORE MY LIBRARY WINDOWSBut at least in the case of Windows apps, there is a developer option that allows you to run these apps without going through the store (mostly for testing). The user won't be allowed to republish your app with alternative version of the library on the app store. You could make the object files available on the internet or if you want to sell the app through the store, you could include a written notice that if someone has bought your app, they can request for the object files. Thus, suppose that the user wants to build this alternative version. WINDOWS STORE MY LIBRARY SOFTWAREYou can instead, for instance, provide object files for your software that the user will be able to link (statically) to any version of the library. LGPL does not force you to use dynamic linking. So, the user is not actually limited to use or distribute a modified version (even if they cannot modify the version that you distribute). ![]() Then they can modify the code (change the dependencies for instance), recompile it, republish it as their own app on the store. The user cannot modify the app on the store in any way (they cannot change the libraries it uses) but say the app provides a link to the code. First, let's imagine what the situation would be like if your app was open source. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |