a*******e
发帖数: 428 | 1 I know they are OK as they both have such words on their website. However,
you have to meet some requirements. By looking at the terms of LGPL and
Boost license, I think they mean the following:
commercial software can use these libraries without a license file covering
the software as long as you don't put this library into your source code, i.
e., static linking.
So, if I make these libraries into .dll and load them in dynamically, I can
use them without the license requirement, am I right?
What about using them at compiling stage in forms of .lib file?
I think that is as far as you can go. But my IT guy said that I could use
even GPL (note: not LGPL) libraries without providing open source code of my
part (the library part are still open). Is this crrect?
Any geeks give some plain language explanation about the legal usage of LGPL
, or Boost library? Thanks. | b*****y
发帖数: 178 | 2 boost不是lgpl，是自己的boost license, 我的理解是和bsd的差不多，可以用在
commercial的code里。
lgpl的,你说的lib是指dll的入口定义，那个是没问题，只要别是static library就行。
gpl的那个只要用到就要开源，it guy说的不对。 | a*******e
发帖数: 428 | 3 Thanks for your reply. I think .dll can be used without license.
But what I was confusting was .lib files, such as MSVC.lib generated by
microsoft, to be used in linking. In this case, the objective code will be
incorporated into your excutables, but you don't include their source code
in your source code. Will excutables generated by this method be covered by
the license?
My understanding of the terms is 'yes', though you don't need to publish
your source code but you have to include a copy of the license in which you
indicate that users can request for your source code for a very minimal
amount of money.
Right?
行。
【在 b*****y 的大作中提到】
: boost不是lgpl，是自己的boost license, 我的理解是和bsd的差不多，可以用在
: commercial的code里。
: lgpl的,你说的lib是指dll的入口定义，那个是没问题，只要别是static library就行。
: gpl的那个只要用到就要开源，it guy说的不对。
|
|
