Searching for the Correct License

mchappee asks: "I'm about to release an Open Source software package for Linux. I'd like to have the code covered under the GPL, but I cannot because it links to commercial libraries. There are lots of Open Source licenses out there, but time and again I see people and companies being attacked for choosing the wrong one. So I ask you, the nerds, to enlighten me. What license will protect my code and ensure that it will always remain Open Source, yet will allow me to link to commercial libraries? "

LGPL

[dysprosium]

Use the LGPL [gnu.org], that's what it's there for.

btw, keep in mind what happened when KDE did this. A free program (especially a good one) which requires non-free libraries is likely to cause a lot of problems with users. You may want to try and find a free library which fills a similar function to the non-free one you are currently using.

Dysprosium

Re:LGPL or GPL with exception

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem. Did you miss this part?

> What license will protect my code and ensure that it will always remain Open Source

OpenLDAP

[Tyler Forge]

I like the OpenLDAP license. It protects you, it
protects your code, it mixes well with licensed
source.

Re:OpenLDAP

[Tyler Forge]

Oops, forgot the url.
http://www.openldap.org/software/release/license .html

why so few comments?

[maphew]

Why so few comments to an important question like this?

Maybe it should be reposted. I simply don't believe there is so little interest in this question.

Just about any Free license will do

[Arandir]

If you are dynamically linking to the library, then the GPL can still be used if you define its terms narrowly. The LGPL is not appropriate since it is for writing libraries, not linking to them, though it could still work.

Otherwise, ANY OTHER Free Software license will work, because it is only the GPL has has restrictions on distributing mixed code. BSD, Artistic, MPL, QPL will all do fine.

The QPL is probably closest to what you want, but modification to the code need to be separate from the code. This won't affect you, but will severely limit the ability of people to fork your code. As with the GPL, you can always include an "exception" to allow distribution of modifications as a full package to facilitate forking.

The Artistic license is also a good choice. It's almost like a cross between the GPL and the BSD. The project can fork, but the forks must use a different name to avoid user confusion.

Re:LGPL or GPL with exception

[Arandir]

The BSD will keep the code Open Source, it just doesn't guarantee that any code forks will be Open as well.

There has yet to be an example of a Free BSD program superseded by a nonfree derivitive. BSDI may be out there, but so are FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD.

However, the author may have wished for something other than what he stated, namely that his code would stay out of proprietary hands entirely. This is a completely different kettle of fish. In this case Artistic, QPL or MPL may be a better choice.

But since he is using a proprietary library, it seems to me that common courtesy would allow the proprietary library's developer access to his code as well. It would be quite rude to say "I'm using your code but you can't use mine."