CrossOver license

kevpatts · Post by **kevpatts** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:07 pm

Hey guys,

I have a question about CrossOver and the LGPL license. I'm looking into licensing some software of my own and I'm not sure if I can.

From what I've read the LGPL license doesn't allow any product to be sold if it's based on LGPL protected software, unless it uses the software simply as a plug-in:

A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

CrossOver clearly is a modification of Wine and uses ongoing code updates. How therefore can they sell it?

The reason I ask is that the software I have written is similarly based on an LGPL base and I'm wondering if I can sell mine.

Kevpatts

Josh Juran · Post by **Josh Juran** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:14 pm

On Nov 1, 2011, at 1:07 PM, kevpatts wrote:

I have a question about CrossOver and the LGPL license. I'm looking into licensing some software of my own and I'm not sure if I can.

From what I've read the LGPL license doesn't allow any product to be sold if it's based on LGPL protected software, unless it uses the software simply as a plug-in:
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
CrossOver clearly is a modification of Wine and uses ongoing code updates. How therefore can they sell it?

The reason I ask is that the software I have written is similarly based on an LGPL base and I'm wondering if I can sell mine.

If you distribute a work that uses an LGPL-licensed library, then you must redistribute (under the LGPL) any changes you made to the library.

(IANAL.)

Josh

ryan woodsmall · Post by **ryan woodsmall** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:39 pm

I have a question about CrossOver and the LGPL license. I'm looking into licensing some software of my own and I'm not sure if I can.

From what I've read the LGPL license doesn't allow any product to be sold if it's based on LGPL protected software, unless it uses the software simply as a plug-in: ...

CrossOver clearly is a modification of Wine and uses ongoing code updates. How therefore can they sell it?

The reason I ask is that the software I have written is similarly based on an LGPL base and I'm wondering if I can sell mine.

IANAL either. You may want to consult one.

CodeWeavers releases the modified Wine sources they use as required by the LGPL:

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/source

They also provide employment to a number of key Wine developers, and have a commitment to both the mainline Wine project as well as their modified commercial distribution. They are stewards of the project and there has so far been no conflict of interest.

The prime difference between the GPL and the LGPL is the definition of derivative work - namely, the "L" in LGPL originally stood for "library," now amended to "lesser." With the LGPL, simply linking to an LGPL'ed library does not taint the software you've written, causing it to become LGPL as well; the GPL license is not as liberal in this regard, though there are linking exceptions in some cases. As long as you release any modified LGPL source, you should theoretically be safe and abiding by the terms of the LGPL without license taint on your custom software. Again, IANAL.

Additionally, don't confuse Free Software licenses with being anti-capitalist or anti-commercial. The GPL, LGPL, etc., are pro-freedom: do what you will with the software, just allow others to do the same. The LGPL is a decent middle-ground between the extremely permissive licenses like BSD/MIT and hard-copyleft licenses like the GPL/Create Commons ShareAlike. -r

Martin Gregorie · Post by **Martin Gregorie** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:42 pm

On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 15:38 -0500, ryan woodsmall wrote:

The prime difference between the GPL and the LGPL is the definition of
derivative work - namely, the "L" in LGPL originally stood for
"library," now amended to "lesser." With the LGPL, simply linking to
an LGPL'ed library does not taint the software you've written, causing
it to become LGPL as well; the GPL license is not as liberal in this regard, though there are linking exceptions in some cases. As long as you release any modified LGPL source, you should theoretically be safe and abiding by the terms of the LGPL without license taint on your custom software. Again, IANAL.

Additionally, don't confuse Free Software licenses with being
anti-capitalist or anti-commercial. The GPL, LGPL, etc., are
pro-freedom: do what you will with the software, just allow others
to do the same. The LGPL is a decent middle-ground between the
extremely permissive licenses like BSD/MIT and hard-copyleft licenses
like the GPL/Create Commons ShareAlike.

This group, where the majority of members don't understand Open Source
Software licensing because, as users, they have no need to do so, is the
wrong place to ask this question. Instead, you should read the GPL and
LGPL licenses, which are fairly short and understandable. You can find
them here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses

IIRC the Apache Foundation licenses are similar in intent to the LGPL:
you can distribute code with either license as parts of larger
(commercial) works without this affecting the type of license you are
required to use for your own work. This is why the LGPL and Apache
licenses are preferred for libraries, plugins, etc. which are normally
used as an unmodified component of a larger work.

Martin

kevpatts · Post by **kevpatts** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:17 pm

Thanks guys for your responses.

Sorry, I'm not trying to start an argument here, and I'm definitely not saying anything about being anti-government! I'm a huge believer in open source software and use nearly only open source software both at home and in work (I know it seems odd that I say that and yet I'm talking about charging for software built on top of LGPL platforms!).

I had mistakenly thought that because it was LGPL that they couldn't charge for it. I notice now that this is not the case; they can charge for it, but they must provide the source code also.

Unfortunately this doesn't really work for me. Thanks for the info guys though.

Cheers,
Kevin

Martin Gregorie · Post by **Martin Gregorie** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:07 pm

On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 18:17 -0500, kevpatts wrote:

Thanks guys for your responses.

I'm a huge believer in open source software and use nearly only open
source software both at home and in work (I know it seems odd that I
say that and yet I'm talking about charging for software built on top
of LGPL platforms!).

I don't see what's wrong with that.

Fact is, if you want to get some return from your efforts, there are
only two practical ways:

1) sell the software, in which case it obviously can't be under the GPL
though if you have written any generally useful libraries as part of
the project, you might put them under the LGPL.

2) sell support and give the program for free (the RedHat model).

If you're a one man band or a very small organisation (1) is about the
only possibility if you and/or your support guy(s) ever want to take
holiday: you need a fair number of people to handle (2) well enough to
give a reasonable response time to queries and problem reports while
still having enough time to keep development going and handling admin
and sales.

Martin

Martin Gregorie · Post by **Martin Gregorie** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:13 pm

On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 13:13 -0700, Josh Juran wrote:

If you distribute a work that uses an LGPL-licensed library, then you
must redistribute (under the LGPL) any changes you made to the
library.

Sure, that's SOP. You can also fork the LGPL code provide it remains
under the LGPL.

However, anything else you write that just uses the LGPL library can use
any license you want and you don't need to distribute the source. This
is unlike the GPL, which says that you use any GPLed code, then your
stuff must also be GPLed regardless of whether you changed any of the
original GPLed code.

Martin

(IANAL.) - nor am I, but I've read both licenses.

Josh Juran · Post by **Josh Juran** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:33 pm

On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:

On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 18:17 -0500, kevpatts wrote:

I'm talking about charging for software built on top
of LGPL platforms
I don't see what's wrong with that.

Fact is, if you want to get some return from your efforts, there are
only two practical ways:

1) sell the software, in which case it obviously can't be under the GPL
though if you have written any generally useful libraries as part of
the project, you might put them under the LGPL.

There's no reason you can't sell a program which you also distribute under the GPL (provided you have buyers). It probably won't work well with a Linux game (whose users I would expect to be less interested in paying and technically adept enough to build from source, assuming their distro hasn't already packaged it), but may work just fine for mobile apps. Perhaps you or I might download the source to Todo.txt Touch, build, and install, but most people will just pay the $2.

Josh