Commercial closed-source interface to the console utility under the LGPL license?

Question

open source

Hey!

There is a console utility licensed under the LGPL. Under what conditions can you distribute a commercial front-end for it? Is it possible to include the utility itself in the distribution?

And, if anyone knows, then a similar question about the GPL.

Answer 1

For the GPL , see the faq on gnu.org : in English and translated into Russian .
In particular, you may use GNU-licensed software in a commercial product, but if you do so, your software must be distributed under the same license ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ru.html#GPLCommercially ):
If I am using a program that is obtained under the terms of the GNU GPL, can I modify the original source code into a new program, and then redistribute and sell this new program for money?

You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program for money, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, you must, for example, make the source code available to users of the program, as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to modify and redistribute it, as described in the GPL.
These requirements are conditions for including parts of the GPL-covered programs that you have obtained into your own program.

If the question is whether it is possible to use GPL-licensed software in a commercial product, while leaving the product closed, then everything is not clear.
First, you may not include GPL software with your product. This limitation can be circumvented by instructing the end user to download and install the required software themselves.
Second, you can only use open source "at arms length". Here is an explanation on this: www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ru.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
I would like to include GPL-distributable software on my proprietary system. May I do this?
You may not include GPL-distributable software on a non-free system. The purpose of the GPL is to give everyone the freedom to copy, distribute, understand, and change the program. If you could include GPL-distributed software on a nonfree system, that would cause such software to become nonfree as well.
A system that includes a program distributed under the GPL is an extension of that program. The GPL says that an enhanced version of a program must be released under the GPL, if it is released at all. This is done for two reasons: first, to ensure that users who receive the program get the freedom they should have, and second, to encourage people to give back the improvements they make.
However, in many cases you can distribute GPL-covered software with your proprietary system. To do this right, you have to make sure that free and non-free software communicate at arm's length, that they don't mix so tightly that it makes them effectively one program.
The difference between this and "inclusion" of GPLed software is partly in nature and partly in the form of interoperability. The substantive part is this: if two programs are combined in such a way that they actually become two parts of one program, then you cannot consider them as separate programs. So the GPL should cover everything.
If two programs remain properly separated, as a compiler and a kernel, or as an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you must do so accordingly. It's just a matter of form: how you describe what you're doing. Why is it not indifferent to us? Because we want to ensure that users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.
If people were going to redistribute GPL software, calling it "part" of a system that users know is partially non-free, then users might be unsure of their rights in relation to GPL software. But if they know that what they got is free software plus other software, side by side, then their rights will be clear.
The LGPL is not as viral as the GPL, and the situation is simpler: you can use such software, provided that you linux your product with open source software ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License ):
The GNU LGPL allows programs under any license incompatible with the GNU GPL to be linked to a given library or program, provided that such program is not derived from an object distributed under the (L)GPL, other than by linking.
The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter also allows linking with a given object by others that creates a derivative work of the given object, if the license of the linked objects allows "modifications for internal use by the consumer and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications."
Just in case, I'll add that this is all my IMHO, based on the study of FAQs and forums on the net. In any case, I gave the links above, I'm sure you'll find the answer there :)

Answer 2

Regarding the GPL, I will answer: the utility itself cannot be included in the distribution. this is a violation.
PS what can come of this :)
www.opennet.ru/opennews/art.shtml?num=34854

Answer 3

Regarding the GPL, I will answer: the utility itself cannot be included in the distribution. this is a violation.
PS what can come of this :)
www.opennet.ru/opennews/art.shtml?num=34854

Answer 4

In the topic of discussion, then it is not clear how sales of mobile devices exist, because each device has binary blobs, and if only in drivers, then everyone will stick into system utilities from the utility that opens the page on the Internet (the application hangs in memory by 20mb) and to the cool support of the google infrastructure, in the case of which the language does not turn about what is primary in the device.