At the risk of seeming pedantic, the proper term is copyleft, not viral licensing. If memory serves, viral licensing has its origins in Microsoft fear-mongering

At the risk of seeming pedantic, the proper term is copyleft, not viral licensing. If memory serves, viral licensing has its origins in Microsoft fear-mongering (predating the modern positive use of viral, as in go viral). > LGPL doesn't impose combined redistribution requirements, does it? It does, in that if you modify the source-code of an LGPL-licensed library and distribute the binary, you are required to also distribute the source (i.e. the source of your modified version). Your modified source must also use the LGPL licence. If you distribute an unmodified binary for an LGPL-licensed library, you must also provide access to the unmodified source. (This isn't to say you need to bundle it into the same archive file.) It differs from the vanilla GPL in that an LGPL-licensed library permits you to dynamically link to it from application code that doesn't need to use any particular licence. (This is at least the gist of the matter as it applies to application code. This isn't legal advice, I'm not a lawyer, etc.) See the final point on this page from the FSF (authors of the GPL and LGPL) - https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/fall/common-gpl-misconceptions https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/fall/common-gpl-misconcept...