If I understand LGPL correctly, any change would require the modified code to be open sourced and available, where as with MIT the developer is free to modify the code without requiring publishing it?
I want people to use my code in their games so they can get an idea to code faster, I feel like LGPL would be a limiting factor imo
Yes, if you change LGPL code you’re required to redistribute its source.
The only advantage i see in the “L” is that you can have your MIT code link with LGPL libraries without hassle and they won’t “contaminate” each other.
OTOH if you want people to screw around with your code unhindered then yeah, MIT or similar.
if you change LGPL code you’re required to redistribute its source.
No, you can change LGPL code all you want without distributing the source, so long as you don’t convey it (either in source or non-source form) to any other parties. The point is to guarantee that anyone receiving the code in any form has the same freedoms that you had when receiving it.
There are a lot of misconceptions floating around regarding these licenses; it’s really worth reading and trying to understand them even if you’re not a lawyer. The FAQ might help:
No, you can change LGPL code all you want without distributing the source, so long as you don’t convey it (either in source or non-source form) to any other parties.
That’s obvious and goes without saying, unless you’re implying whenever i change LGPL code uncle Sam is watching my keystrokes in my LAN?
Even if you think so, I hope you will consider revising your earlier comment. As written, it is incorrect, leading uninformed readers to believe something that simply is not true.
Edit: In my experience, license terms are seldom obvious, and never go without saying.
Sure, use GPL then. The libraries I share won’t get any use if they aren’t MIT
Perhaps LGPL?
Every project has it’s requirements and every developer has opinions and ethics
If LGPL works for you and your project then LGPL works. Why not?
The long version of my comment is: If the reason is copyleft licenses, then maybe the LGPL is somewhat of a middle-ground?
If I understand LGPL correctly, any change would require the modified code to be open sourced and available, where as with MIT the developer is free to modify the code without requiring publishing it?
I want people to use my code in their games so they can get an idea to code faster, I feel like LGPL would be a limiting factor imo
Yes, if you change LGPL code you’re required to redistribute its source.
The only advantage i see in the “L” is that you can have your MIT code link with LGPL libraries without hassle and they won’t “contaminate” each other.
OTOH if you want people to screw around with your code unhindered then yeah, MIT or similar.
I am not a lawyer.
I love this stuff, I’m gonna stick with MIT for myself but I love that there are so many options.
No, you can change LGPL code all you want without distributing the source, so long as you don’t convey it (either in source or non-source form) to any other parties. The point is to guarantee that anyone receiving the code in any form has the same freedoms that you had when receiving it.
There are a lot of misconceptions floating around regarding these licenses; it’s really worth reading and trying to understand them even if you’re not a lawyer. The FAQ might help:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
That’s obvious and goes without saying, unless you’re implying whenever i change LGPL code uncle Sam is watching my keystrokes in my LAN?
I quoted the FAQ in one of my replies.
Even if you think so, I hope you will consider revising your earlier comment. As written, it is incorrect, leading uninformed readers to believe something that simply is not true.
Edit: In my experience, license terms are seldom obvious, and never go without saying.