All geek questions in one place

GPL License, LGPL

My application uses 2 libraries (not changed). The first is under the GPL and the second under the LGPL. This means that my application must be released under the GPL and LGPL, because both libraries will be shipped with my application. It's great. Now the application provides a plugin infrastructure so that everyone can write plugins for it. Plugins will not be able to directly contact these two libraries mentioned at the beginning of the text because they have no idea what is behind the application. Plugins will not ship with the app. Users will be able to choose which plugin they want to install from the open / open list of plugins through the application.

Questions:

  • Should plugins also be released under the GPL?
  • Is there a way to release some plugins under a closed source license? Which one?
  • What would be the best licensed approach to prohibit companies from writing plugins that are free on the client side (application), and not free on the server side without a commercial license? (the plugin calls a web service that charges a fee for using the service). In this case, I would like the company to pay some fee, since in one hand it goes for commercial use. For example, for example, someone has a web service that converts images between different formats. That someone is writing a plugin that requires user account information (login). The plugin connects to its web service, authenticates, converts the image and charges the user account for a certain amount. In this example, the plugin is free to install and use. This is a custom choice,he will use it fully or not.

- ?

.

+3
2

  • . , API, , , , , , GPL. , , "" / "" - , . , IANAL .., , ; : , , .

  • (. 1), .

  • - , -freebeer-. , .., freebeer freefreedom.

+1

.

, , LPGL, . . GPL, LPGL. , GPL LGPL.

GPL . GPL , GPL . ( , . GPL . , , , .)

, Q1: . Q2: , , . Q3. . , , . -, . -, , GPL . .

+4

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1783391/

More articles:


All Articles