#lgpl — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #lgpl, aggregated by home.social.
-
@valorzard this discusses #LGPL 2.1, but #Guile is licensed under LGPL 3 (or later) which gives you a clear path (point 4 d 0):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0> Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
@leogaggl @doctormo -
@valorzard this discusses #LGPL 2.1, but #Guile is licensed under LGPL 3 (or later) which gives you a clear path (point 4 d 0):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0> Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
@leogaggl @doctormo -
@valorzard this discusses #LGPL 2.1, but #Guile is licensed under LGPL 3 (or later) which gives you a clear path (point 4 d 0):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0> Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
@leogaggl @doctormo -
@valorzard this discusses #LGPL 2.1, but #Guile is licensed under LGPL 3 (or later) which gives you a clear path (point 4 d 0):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0> Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
@leogaggl @doctormo -
#WIME が #LGPL であることをいいことに、勝手に #GitHub にミラーしておいた #InputMethod
GitHub - hadsn/WIME: Copy of thomas's WIME. Using Windows IME as Linux IM. · GitHub https://github.com/hadsn/WIME .
-
#WIME が #LGPL であることをいいことに、勝手に #GitHub にミラーしておいた #InputMethod
GitHub - hadsn/WIME: Copy of thomas's WIME. Using Windows IME as Linux IM. · GitHub https://github.com/hadsn/WIME .
-
Existe la #LGPL que permite enlazar software privativo. Es la licencia que utiliza la #Glibc.
Así, cosas como las que dijo John #Carmack son erróneas. Ya me dirás qué valor saca #FreeBSD de la #PS5. Si casi no se obtiene nada de #Linux en televisores u otros dispositivos siendo #Copyleft con #GPL.
"The recent discussions around copilot are a good opportunity to say this: I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as #BSD. The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. My partners would never have gone for it, though."
https://xcancel.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1412271091393994754 -
[Перевод] Лицензии слабого копилефта: могут ли они заменить пермиссивные (разрешительные) лицензии?
Среди открытых лицензий хорошо известны строгие GPL и (с другой стороны) разрешительные — MIT, Apache. Однако менее известен слабый копилефт, который находится между ними. А ведь эти лицензии имеют такие популярные приложения и библиотеки, как Mozilla Firefox, glibc, LibreOffice и другие. Подходящий ли это вариант для интеграции открытого софта с закрытым ? И стоит ли авторам ПО с открытым кодом использовать лицензии слабого копилефта вместо пермиссивных (если GPL/AGPL не подходит) ?
https://habr.com/ru/articles/1024508/
#opensource #patents #lgpl #mpl #epl #copyleft #право #copyright #линковка #gpl
-
[Перевод] Лицензии слабого копилефта: могут ли они заменить пермиссивные (разрешительные) лицензии?
Среди открытых лицензий хорошо известны строгие GPL и (с другой стороны) разрешительные — MIT, Apache. Однако менее известен слабый копилефт, который находится между ними. А ведь эти лицензии имеют такие популярные приложения и библиотеки, как Mozilla Firefox, glibc, LibreOffice и другие. Подходящий ли это вариант для интеграции открытого софта с закрытым ? И стоит ли авторам ПО с открытым кодом использовать лицензии слабого копилефта вместо пермиссивных (если GPL/AGPL не подходит) ?
https://habr.com/ru/articles/1024508/
#opensource #patents #lgpl #mpl #epl #copyleft #право #copyright #линковка #gpl
-
[Перевод] Лицензии слабого копилефта: могут ли они заменить пермиссивные (разрешительные) лицензии?
Среди открытых лицензий хорошо известны строгие GPL и (с другой стороны) разрешительные — MIT, Apache. Однако менее известен слабый копилефт, который находится между ними. А ведь эти лицензии имеют такие популярные приложения и библиотеки, как Mozilla Firefox, glibc, LibreOffice и другие. Подходящий ли это вариант для интеграции открытого софта с закрытым ? И стоит ли авторам ПО с открытым кодом использовать лицензии слабого копилефта вместо пермиссивных (если GPL/AGPL не подходит) ?
https://habr.com/ru/articles/1024508/
#opensource #patents #lgpl #mpl #epl #copyleft #право #copyright #линковка #gpl
-
Why genAI means the end of copyright for software and the re-invention of open sourceMost of the discussions about the impact of the latest generative AI systems on copyright have centred on text, images and video. That’s no surprise, since writers, artists and film-makers feel very strongly about their creations, and members of the public can relate easily to the issues that AI raises for this kind of creativity. But there’s another creative domain that has been massively […]
#ai #chardet #circumvention #claude #cleanRoom #danBlanchard #genai #gnu #gpl #lgpl #licensing #markPilgrim #mit #nebraskaProblem #openSource #openSource20 #python #richardStallman #software #unix https://walledculture.org/why-genai-means-the-end-of-copyright-for-software-and-the-re-invention-of-open-source/ -
Why genAI means the end of copyright for software and the re-invention of open sourceMost of the discussions about the impact of the latest generative AI systems on copyright have centred on text, images and video. That’s no surprise, since writers, artists and film-makers feel very strongly about their creations, and members of the public can relate easily to the issues that AI raises for this kind of creativity. But there’s another creative domain that has been massively […]
#ai #chardet #circumvention #claude #cleanRoom #danBlanchard #genai #gnu #gpl #lgpl #licensing #markPilgrim #mit #nebraskaProblem #openSource #openSource20 #python #richardStallman #software #unix https://walledculture.org/why-genai-means-the-end-of-copyright-for-software-and-the-re-invention-of-open-source/ -
Why genAI means the end of copyright for software and the re-invention of open sourceMost of the discussions about the impact of the latest generative AI systems on copyright have centred on text, images and video. That’s no surprise, since writers, artists and film-makers feel very strongly about their creations, and members of the public can relate easily to the issues that AI raises for this kind of creativity. But there’s another creative domain that has been massively […]
#ai #chardet #circumvention #claude #cleanRoom #danBlanchard #genai #gnu #gpl #lgpl #licensing #markPilgrim #mit #nebraskaProblem #openSource #openSource20 #python #richardStallman #software #unix https://walledculture.org/why-genai-means-the-end-of-copyright-for-software-and-the-re-invention-of-open-source/ -
Why genAI means the end of copyright for software and the re-invention of open sourceMost of the discussions about the impact of the latest generative AI systems on copyright have centred on text, images and video. That’s no surprise, since writers, artists and film-makers feel very strongly about their creations, and members of the public can relate easily to the issues that AI raises for this kind of creativity. But there’s another creative domain that has been massively […]
#ai #chardet #circumvention #claude #cleanRoom #danBlanchard #genai #gnu #gpl #lgpl #licensing #markPilgrim #mit #nebraskaProblem #openSource #openSource20 #python #richardStallman #software #unix https://walledculture.org/why-genai-means-the-end-of-copyright-for-software-and-the-re-invention-of-open-source/ -
Why genAI means the end of copyright for software and the re-invention of open sourceMost of the discussions about the impact of the latest generative AI systems on copyright have centred on text, images and video. That’s no surprise, since writers, artists and film-makers feel very strongly about their creations, and members of the public can relate easily to the issues that AI raises for this kind of creativity. But there’s another creative domain that has been massively […]
#ai #chardet #circumvention #claude #cleanRoom #danBlanchard #genai #gnu #gpl #lgpl #licensing #markPilgrim #mit #nebraskaProblem #openSource #openSource20 #python #richardStallman #software #unix https://walledculture.org/why-genai-means-the-end-of-copyright-for-software-and-the-re-invention-of-open-source/ -
Hope of AGPL Licenser by Bovas De Quincey, an autobiography.
#agpl
#fsf
#gnu
#gpl
#lgpl
#richardmatthewstallman
#richardstallman
#rms
#stallmanwasright -
Salvatore Sanfilippo (@antirez) and Armin Ronacher (@mitsuhiko) both argue that #AI reimplementation of #copyleft libraries is fine. Their legal reasoning might be correct. That's not the point.
Legal and legitimate are different things—and both pieces quietly assume otherwise.
https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo (@antirez) and Armin Ronacher (@mitsuhiko) both argue that #AI reimplementation of #copyleft libraries is fine. Their legal reasoning might be correct. That's not the point.
Legal and legitimate are different things—and both pieces quietly assume otherwise.
https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo (@antirez) and Armin Ronacher (@mitsuhiko) both argue that #AI reimplementation of #copyleft libraries is fine. Their legal reasoning might be correct. That's not the point.
Legal and legitimate are different things—and both pieces quietly assume otherwise.
https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo (@antirez) and Armin Ronacher (@mitsuhiko) both argue that #AI reimplementation of #copyleft libraries is fine. Their legal reasoning might be correct. That's not the point.
Legal and legitimate are different things—and both pieces quietly assume otherwise.
https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/
-
Salvatore Sanfilippo (@antirez) and Armin Ronacher (@mitsuhiko) both argue that #AI reimplementation of #copyleft libraries is fine. Their legal reasoning might be correct. That's not the point.
Legal and legitimate are different things—and both pieces quietly assume otherwise.
https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/03/legal-vs-legitimate/
-
Ah quand même !?
Bon... 'fallait s'y attendre... -
Ah quand même !?
Bon... 'fallait s'y attendre... -
Ah quand même !?
Bon... 'fallait s'y attendre... -
Ah quand même !?
Bon... 'fallait s'y attendre... -
Ah quand même !?
Bon... 'fallait s'y attendre... -
#Chardet : quand une #IA réécrit un logiciel #opensource #foss en cinq jours et change sa #licence , sans vergogne de #LGPL à #MIT ...
Vide #juridique total... -
#Chardet : quand une #IA réécrit un logiciel #opensource #foss en cinq jours et change sa #licence , sans vergogne de #LGPL à #MIT ...
Vide #juridique total... -
#Chardet : quand une #IA réécrit un logiciel #opensource #foss en cinq jours et change sa #licence , sans vergogne de #LGPL à #MIT ...
Vide #juridique total... -
#Chardet : quand une #IA réécrit un logiciel #opensource #foss en cinq jours et change sa #licence , sans vergogne de #LGPL à #MIT ...
Vide #juridique total... -
#Chardet : quand une #IA réécrit un logiciel #opensource #foss en cinq jours et change sa #licence , sans vergogne de #LGPL à #MIT ...
Vide #juridique total... -
#Chardet : quand une #IA réécrit un logiciel #opensource #foss en cinq jours et change sa #licence , sans vergogne de #LGPL à #MIT ... Vide #juridique total... korben.info/chardet-quan...
Chardet : quand une IA réécrit... -
#Chardet : quand une #IA réécrit un logiciel #opensource #foss en cinq jours et change sa #licence , sans vergogne de #LGPL à #MIT ... Vide #juridique total... korben.info/chardet-quan...
Chardet : quand une IA réécrit... -
An interesting #licence war is happening in the #Python world.
The popular `chardet` package has apparently been re-written (by assistance of the Claude #LLM). Undergoing this *version* change to v 7.0.0 the current maintainer has shifted the licence away from the #LGPL to the more permissive MIT licence.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know about the deeper backgrounds. While a complete clean slate implementation may justify a different licence, I don't think that anyone who's been maintaining a package for years can claim complete lack of influence on the existing code base. So a licence change from one version to another without consent of the (original) contributors seems wildly inadmissible.
Additionally, if the author claims a complete re-write using Claude, in many jurisdictions (including the US) AI generated content cannot be IP protected. So in that case he'd have had to remove the #copyright (c) claim to his name as well to be at least consistent with the narrative.
This is completely independent of the authenticity of the supposed statement by Mark Pilgrim (original author) of `chardet`.
I'm interested to hear what others think ...
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/06/ai_kills_software_licensing/
-
An interesting #licence war is happening in the #Python world.
The popular `chardet` package has apparently been re-written (by assistance of the Claude #LLM). Undergoing this *version* change to v 7.0.0 the current maintainer has shifted the licence away from the #LGPL to the more permissive MIT licence.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know about the deeper backgrounds. While a complete clean slate implementation may justify a different licence, I don't think that anyone who's been maintaining a package for years can claim complete lack of influence on the existing code base. So a licence change from one version to another without consent of the (original) contributors seems wildly inadmissible.
Additionally, if the author claims a complete re-write using Claude, in many jurisdictions (including the US) AI generated content cannot be IP protected. So in that case he'd have had to remove the #copyright (c) claim to his name as well to be at least consistent with the narrative.
This is completely independent of the authenticity of the supposed statement by Mark Pilgrim (original author) of `chardet`.
I'm interested to hear what others think ...
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/06/ai_kills_software_licensing/
-
An interesting #licence war is happening in the #Python world.
The popular `chardet` package has apparently been re-written (by assistance of the Claude #LLM). Undergoing this *version* change to v 7.0.0 the current maintainer has shifted the licence away from the #LGPL to the more permissive MIT licence.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know about the deeper backgrounds. While a complete clean slate implementation may justify a different licence, I don't think that anyone who's been maintaining a package for years can claim complete lack of influence on the existing code base. So a licence change from one version to another without consent of the (original) contributors seems wildly inadmissible.
Additionally, if the author claims a complete re-write using Claude, in many jurisdictions (including the US) AI generated content cannot be IP protected. So in that case he'd have had to remove the #copyright (c) claim to his name as well to be at least consistent with the narrative.
This is completely independent of the authenticity of the supposed statement by Mark Pilgrim (original author) of `chardet`.
I'm interested to hear what others think ...
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/06/ai_kills_software_licensing/
-
An interesting #licence war is happening in the #Python world.
The popular `chardet` package has apparently been re-written (by assistance of the Claude #LLM). Undergoing this *version* change to v 7.0.0 the current maintainer has shifted the licence away from the #LGPL to the more permissive MIT licence.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know about the deeper backgrounds. While a complete clean slate implementation may justify a different licence, I don't think that anyone who's been maintaining a package for years can claim complete lack of influence on the existing code base. So a licence change from one version to another without consent of the (original) contributors seems wildly inadmissible.
Additionally, if the author claims a complete re-write using Claude, in many jurisdictions (including the US) AI generated content cannot be IP protected. So in that case he'd have had to remove the #copyright (c) claim to his name as well to be at least consistent with the narrative.
This is completely independent of the authenticity of the supposed statement by Mark Pilgrim (original author) of `chardet`.
I'm interested to hear what others think ...
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/06/ai_kills_software_licensing/
-
An interesting #licence war is happening in the #Python world.
The popular `chardet` package has apparently been re-written (by assistance of the Claude #LLM). Undergoing this *version* change to v 7.0.0 the current maintainer has shifted the licence away from the #LGPL to the more permissive MIT licence.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know about the deeper backgrounds. While a complete clean slate implementation may justify a different licence, I don't think that anyone who's been maintaining a package for years can claim complete lack of influence on the existing code base. So a licence change from one version to another without consent of the (original) contributors seems wildly inadmissible.
Additionally, if the author claims a complete re-write using Claude, in many jurisdictions (including the US) AI generated content cannot be IP protected. So in that case he'd have had to remove the #copyright (c) claim to his name as well to be at least consistent with the narrative.
This is completely independent of the authenticity of the supposed statement by Mark Pilgrim (original author) of `chardet`.
I'm interested to hear what others think ...
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/06/ai_kills_software_licensing/
-
@simon Obviously! The source code is: that code required to produce the binary. That code was LGPL. It doesn't matter how many algorithms, nor the nature of the algorithms, it goes through to become those 1s and 0s.
#law #lawfare #computerScience #intellectualProperty #licensing #FOSS #GNU #LGPL #MIT #code #softwareEngineering #LLM #codeWashing
-
@simon Obviously! The source code is: that code required to produce the binary. That code was LGPL. It doesn't matter how many algorithms, nor the nature of the algorithms, it goes through to become those 1s and 0s.
#law #lawfare #computerScience #intellectualProperty #licensing #FOSS #GNU #LGPL #MIT #code #softwareEngineering #LLM #codeWashing
-
@simon Obviously! The source code is: that code required to produce the binary. That code was LGPL. It doesn't matter how many algorithms, nor the nature of the algorithms, it goes through to become those 1s and 0s.
#law #lawfare #computerScience #intellectualProperty #licensing #FOSS #GNU #LGPL #MIT #code #softwareEngineering #LLM #codeWashing
-
@simon Obviously! The source code is: that code required to produce the binary. That code was LGPL. It doesn't matter how many algorithms, nor the nature of the algorithms, it goes through to become those 1s and 0s.
#law #lawfare #computerScience #intellectualProperty #licensing #FOSS #GNU #LGPL #MIT #code #softwareEngineering #LLM #codeWashing
-
@simon Obviously! The source code is: that code required to produce the binary. That code was LGPL. It doesn't matter how many algorithms, nor the nature of the algorithms, it goes through to become those 1s and 0s.
#law #lawfare #computerScience #intellectualProperty #licensing #FOSS #GNU #LGPL #MIT #code #softwareEngineering #LLM #codeWashing
