4 ms·
Yeah this seems like a major issue. I think the AGPL is strictly stronger than the GPL so if it was possible to use a GPL or AGPL library from non-GPL code then
by resoluteteeth 2y ago
Yeah this seems like a major issue. I think the AGPL is strictly stronger than the GPL so if it was possible to use a GPL or AGPL library from non-GPL code then surely there would be no reason for the LGPL license to exist?
- pcthrowaway 2y agoYeah, unfortunately I think it's debatable whether LGPL is even OK for a closed-source project to use, since IIRC LGPL specifically talks about linking compiled binaries. I guess there's the argument that transpiled, minified javascript program is a compiled binary? I'd love to know whether these things have been tested in various courts.
- leni536 2y ago> LGPL specifically talks about linking compiled binaries. That's the context where LGPL is used most often, but the license itself is more general than that. In particular 4/d/0 in [1]. AFAIK, LGPL is about replaceability. If you distribute a compiled program (yes, a minified JS program should qualify) then you need to distribute the source of the LGPL part and document a way how the user can replace that LGPL part in your program with their own modified copy. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html