This license does not allow you to make changes or add functionality to CUPS and then sell a binary distribution without source code. You must specify the source of any changes or additions to the software and the complete code must be provided under the GPL or LGPL. The only exceptions to this rule are the portions of the CUPS software covered by Apple`s operating system license exemptions described later in this License Agreement. 11. If, as a result of a court order or alleged patent infringement, or for any other reason (not limited to patent matters), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) contrary to the terms of this license, they will not send you terms of this license. Therefore, if you are unable to simultaneously fulfill your obligations under this license and all other relevant obligations, then you absolutely cannot distribute the library. For example, if a patent license did not allow free retransmission of the library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly from you, the only way to honor that license and it would be to completely refrain from distributing the library. The former name “GNU Library General Public License” gave the impression to some that the software libraries recommended by the FSF used the LGPL and GPL programs. In February 1999, Richard Stallman, gnu project manager, wrote the essay Why you should not use the Lesser GPL for your next library, explaining that the LGPL was not obsolete, but that the LGPL should not necessarily be used for all libraries. The LGPL was conceived as a compromise between the powerful copyleft of the GNU General Public License (GPL) and more permissive licenses such as the BSD licenses and the MIT license. The word “reader” in the title indicates that the LGPL does not guarantee the total freedom of the end user in the use of the software; it only guarantees freedom of modification for LGPL-licensed components, but not for proprietary components. 5. A program that does not contain a derivative of a part of the library, but is designed to work with the library by compiling or being associated with it, is called a “work that uses the library”.
Such a work is not in itself a derivative work of the library and therefore does not fall within the scope of that licence. Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the library, you may distribute the object code of the work under the conditions of section 6. All executable files containing this work are also covered by section 6, whether or not they are directly related to the library itself. . What if free software is only part of the application? Does the application need to be distributed with its complete source code? The reason we have a separate public license for some libraries is that they blur the distinction we usually make between modifying or adding a program and easily using a program. Associating a program with a library without modifying the library is, in a way, the use of the library and corresponds to the execution of a utility or an application program. However, in the textual and legal sense of the term, the linked executable file is a combined work, a derivative of the original library, and the ordinary General Public License treats it as such….
Categorised as: Uncategorized
Comments are disabled on this post