这是有效的LGPL方案吗? [英] Is this a valid LGPL scenario?

问题描述

假设我在封闭源下有ProjectX.它引用/链接到Y组件LGPL，我们对Y组件进行了修改

Suppose I have Project X under closed source. It references/links to component Y which is LGPL, we make modifications to component Y

1)我们发布Project X二进制文件，其源代码为经过修改的组件Y

1) We release Project X binaries with the source to the modified component Y

OR

2)我们向上游(向原始作者)贡献了组件Y的修改，并释放了没有组件Y源的Project X二进制文件.

2) We contribute component Y modifications back upstream (to the original author(s)) and release Project X binaries without component Y source.

这些方案中的任何一个是否符合LGPL?

Does any of these scenarios comply with the LGPL?

推荐答案

1)很好.

2)不是:您必须分发您的来源(或至少要提供书面要约).您的用户将很难在上游修补程序存储库的深度中查找您所做的修改(无论是错误跟踪器).

2) is not: you have to distribute y source (or at least a written offer to do so). Your users would have a hard time looking for your modification in depths of upstream patch repository (a bug tracker, whatever).

这篇关于这是有效的LGPL方案吗?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！