search

avlsocialconnect / osmbonuspack

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/osmbonuspack
0 stars 0 forks source link

OSMBonusPack Licence #86

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hi, 

I'm thinking about using OSMBonusPack in my project, but the LGPL licence is a 
huge obstacle.
Is there any discussion about changing the licence ?

Thanks guys

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mathieu.debrito on 17 Sep 2014 at 7:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Well, the discussion can start here, and now :-)

The status: 
- OSMBonusPack uses LGPL 3.0
- osmdroid was using LGPL until mid-2013, then moved to Apache 2.0 (osmdroid 
issue #485).

Could you detail the huge obstacle of LGPL 3.0, compared to Apache 2.0?

Original comment by mathieu....@gmail.com on 17 Sep 2014 at 8:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sure, 

I heard about the fact that : with LGPL 3.0, we must set as LGPL the parts of 
our work that uses LGPL 3.0 licences.
But actually (after some more reading about it), it's not true right ?

I want to make an app that uses OSMBonusPack, the app will have a paid version 
and the code will not go open source. What should I do ?

Original comment by mathieu.debrito on 17 Sep 2014 at 8:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
As far as I understand opensource licences (I'm not a layer...): 

- You can use a LPGL library - as it is - to build your own app ("work that 
uses the Library"). Your app can be close-source, and sold. Apache licence is 
similar on this. 

- You can modify the LGPL lib ("derivative work") => in this case, your change 
must be LGPL as well (open source, and free of charge). This is the main 
difference with Apache licence. 

So: 
- Yes, you can use OSMBonusPack to build your close-source app, and then sell 
this app. 
- But if you want to fork OSMBonusPack, this fork must be opensource, and LGPL 
as well.

Original comment by mathieu....@gmail.com on 18 Sep 2014 at 4:47