This is probably off topic, but I find it impossible to use cppunit due to the LPGL.
There are statements to affect that it makes it possible to ship non-free software with this license. My (non-lawyer) review of the license shows that section 6a (and possibly others) makes that all but impossible.
How can one ship a non-free product that uses cppunit with the LPGL license?
I am interested in your opinions on this matter.
Thank you,
...Duane Murphy
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'm assuming you mean LGPL
(GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE)
I'm no lawyer, but my 0.02 NOK on the subject is rather naive and simplistic:
I use CppUnit "beside" my project, so the main project builds completely without CppUnit. I only use CppUnit to help me write testcases for my big testrunner app that links in the main project.
Therefore I have no need to distribute CppUnit with the main project, and if the licence reads like a Greek food menu, I just don't show anybody my testrunner code or testcases :-P
(So far it seems like I could get away with this even on something that is GPL'd.)
But with the LGPL, I believe there should be no problem with sending your testrunner and testcases along as closed-source and/or non-free software, atleast not if you're just "using" CppUnit, and not modifing it.
As I interpret 6a), you may have to release a binary of the testapp or main project, so that the user may relink, but you don't have to release any source code of your project. Alternatively using 6b) seems more viable, linking dynamically so that there is no need to recompile.
Perhaps some details on how your non-free software would depend on CppUnit would help shed more light?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is probably off topic, but I find it impossible to use cppunit due to the LPGL.
There are statements to affect that it makes it possible to ship non-free software with this license. My (non-lawyer) review of the license shows that section 6a (and possibly others) makes that all but impossible.
How can one ship a non-free product that uses cppunit with the LPGL license?
I am interested in your opinions on this matter.
Thank you,
...Duane Murphy
I'm assuming you mean LGPL
(GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE)
I'm no lawyer, but my 0.02 NOK on the subject is rather naive and simplistic:
I use CppUnit "beside" my project, so the main project builds completely without CppUnit. I only use CppUnit to help me write testcases for my big testrunner app that links in the main project.
Ie, dependecies are:
[main project]<---[testrunner]--->[CppUnit]
Therefore I have no need to distribute CppUnit with the main project, and if the licence reads like a Greek food menu, I just don't show anybody my testrunner code or testcases :-P
(So far it seems like I could get away with this even on something that is GPL'd.)
But with the LGPL, I believe there should be no problem with sending your testrunner and testcases along as closed-source and/or non-free software, atleast not if you're just "using" CppUnit, and not modifing it.
As I interpret 6a), you may have to release a binary of the testapp or main project, so that the user may relink, but you don't have to release any source code of your project. Alternatively using 6b) seems more viable, linking dynamically so that there is no need to recompile.
Perhaps some details on how your non-free software would depend on CppUnit would help shed more light?