I have a discussion with a friend regarding the Lesser GNU General Public License, LGPL, for server side code - in this case a PHP library.
He argues that since the PHP application is not distributed to the user - it is merely running on the server - he doesn't have to re-distribute the library sources after he modified it. This is basically the motivation behind the AGPL license. But AFAIK there is no corresponding license for LGPL libraries.
So, the question is: is the LGPL license pointless for PHP libraries, in that the user can modify the library all he wants without having to re-distribute the library? (Assuming the website code is not distributed in turn.)
Edit: There is some confusion on my AGPL example. For GPLed code, you can release under AGPL and have the desired effect (basically: anyone using the code on, in this example, a website, must release the complete sources under an AGPL compliant license.) For LGPL licensed code, there seemed to be no equally functioning license (that would basically work like: anyone can use your library on their website without releasing the full sources, but if she makes changes to your library, she must release the changes.)
Solution: My friend was right, and the solution seems to be to release under LGPLv3 with Affero clause.
views:
682answers:
5I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I think the difference is that instead of selling your software to the user so they can do (insert service), you're providing the service to them, and using the software you wrote to assist you. You wouldn't be profiting from the sale of your software, just the use of it.
Yes, I would not license PHP code under LGPL. Why don't you just use the AGPL? If you don't want to use AGPL, you might as well use something non-restrictive like BSD, because it will have essentially the same affect.
If you don't distribute the code - i.e. if it is for use in your company or on your own web server (even an Internat facing one) then you do not need to provide the changes you have made. This is true for both LGPL and GPL - the key is distribution.
And please note that licenses cannot be retroactive - the text of the license that came with the software you are asking about is the only thing you need worry about.
That depends if it's LGPLv2 or LGPLv3. If it's LGPLv2 you're safe. If it's LGPLv3, that depend if it has infamous Affero clause. In later case I'd suggest you stay away from it and choose something Open Source instead.
On the other hand remember that under LGPL you only have to distribute changes to the library itself, not the source of entire application.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I'm not responsible for what you do with this.
I just recently looked into this issue myself and this is what I found: