Can I redistribute Phing with non-free software? [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.

---

This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.

Closed 7 years ago.

Improve th开发者_如何学编程is question

I am having trouble understanding the terms of the LGPL in light of a program that is not written in C or C++. They speak of libraries being linked and 'derivitive' works. If I were to package a php program and sell it, but within the program the deployment mechanism used the phing package (full up with the entire contents as is and un modified) - would I be violating the terms of the LGPL?

For example, If this was a C program that was compiled by linking the phing 'library' then the answer would be easier, it is a derivitive work and therefore unless released under the GPL will not be considered free and also a violation. But this situation is different. I am not linking and not producing a derivitive, i am simply using phing as a deployment tool to move files around and set up the enviornment.

Can someone shed some light? Thank you!

EDIT I see, so because I am simply using the functionality of the library and not modifying it in any way, whether or not I distribute it along with my, lets say, highly proprietary and expensive software package, is of no consequence. Do I have that correct?

In my case I am packaging a potentially proprietary and fee oriented web software with a complete and unmolested library that contains LGPL licensing - the GPL does not come into play because I am not modifying the code and because I am distributing it along with mine unmolested in its original form, I am OK. Right? I only ask because I thought this was actually wrong. I was under the impression that something GPL'ed cannot be redistributed in anyway non-modified or not under any other form of closed licensing.

---

You are fine to distribute / use the LGPL library either obfuscated or unobfuscated. The derivative works clause in the LGPL basically says that if you modify a library, the library must continue to serve its original purpose under the same name. If libfoo determines the square root of a number via its fooroot() function, that function must continue to serve the same purpose if you modify and distribute the library under the same name. This is really intended just to prevent confusion and breakage. Its a non-issue, you have noted that you aren't making any modifications.

The other thing is understanding linking, and the intent of using the term linking in the license. The minute two things are combined in the same address space (memory) simply by running a program as directed, they can pretty much be considered linked, even if there was no linker being involved.

In your case, there's no issue either way. Even if the library was GPL (not LGPL), if you are just using PHP as a delivery mechanism, there would be no reason to not provide the source code to what you convey. However in the case of the LGPL, that is no longer a requirement.