GPLv3 compatibility questions
ternovich at gmail.com
Wed May 11 04:05:48 UTC 2011
Thanks for rapid answer!
As far as I understand I can create separate package with artwork
(icons, images etc) and release it under non-profitable non-derivative
license. In order to reuse this "proprietary" (of some kind) package
in my main application I should release it (main application) under
LGPL due to the fact that LGPL allows me to link against non-GPL
licensed package without providing it's sources right?
2011/5/10 David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk>:
> David Woolley wrote:
>>> I don't want any derivatives and commercial usage of my hand-made
>>> icons/images/artwork. Is it legal to use
>> No. These sound much too tightly bound. If these form an important part
>> of the package, rather than just examples of things that the user is
>> expected to replace, they need to be GPL compatible.
> To get reasonably within the spirit of the GPL, you would, I believe, need
> to supply the program so that it installs with fit for purpose, but maybe
> not particularly pretty images - the nature of the application may affect
> this. Then add the better images separately, in a form that would allow
> someone without development tools to substitute them for the basic images.
> Note that the version with the images replaced with the good ones would not
> be redistributable by the recipient, as such redistribution would mean that
> they breached the GPL. This include non-commercial redistribution.
> Alternatively, you would need to use the LGPL, and provide the linkable
> version of everything except the images, together with documentation on how
> to create a compatible images module, in addition to complete program.
> The use of MS-PL almost certainly means that LGPL is the only GPL family
> I am not a laywer; this is not legal advice.
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
More information about the License-discuss