通常，对于这些类型的开源程序，如果您的“关于”页面中只有“Frobnicator 使用 Foo 库，可在 Lesser Gnu 公共许可证下使用”声明，以及程序中可用的 LGPL 源代码，那么您就可以了某处。我不确定我是否曾经只看到过许可证链接，而没有实际的许可证文本。
一种想法可能是只向库的开发人员或库的邮件列表发送电子邮件，询问您需要做什么才能正确许可该库。
而且我不是律师，所以我所说的一切在法律上都不一定是正确的，等等。
In one plain English "translation", the library remains available under LGPL while your main software can be whatever license you'd like.
Typically with these types of open source programs, you're okay if you just have a "Frobnicator uses the Foo library, available under the Lesser Gnu Public License" statement in your "about" page, along with the LGPL source available in the program somewhere. I'm not sure I've ever seen just a link to a license, without the actual license text.
One idea might be to just email the developer of the library or the library's mailing list and just ask what you need to do to properly license that library.
And I am not a lawyer, so nothing I've said is necessarily legally true, etc.
The two major restrictions on the LGPL are modification and dynamic linking. The LGPL was written with compiled languages in mind, and since JavaScript is not compiled, I do not understand how it can be linked. As it stands, the LGPL and JavaScript are a poor combination.
The LGPL allows you to link to the LGPL'd library in a closed-source (commercial) application. Distribution of the source code for the commercial application is not required.
发布评论
评论（5）
对于 LGPL 不，你不需要（需要开源）。
With LGPL no you don't (need to open the source).
在一个简单的英语“翻译”中，该库仍然可以在 LGPL 下使用，而您的主要软件可以是任何您想要的许可证。
通常，对于这些类型的开源程序，如果您的“关于”页面中只有“Frobnicator 使用 Foo 库，可在 Lesser Gnu 公共许可证下使用”声明，以及程序中可用的 LGPL 源代码，那么您就可以了某处。我不确定我是否曾经只看到过许可证链接，而没有实际的许可证文本。
一种想法可能是只向库的开发人员或库的邮件列表发送电子邮件，询问您需要做什么才能正确许可该库。
而且我不是律师，所以我所说的一切在法律上都不一定是正确的，等等。
In one plain English "translation", the library remains available under LGPL while your main software can be whatever license you'd like.
Typically with these types of open source programs, you're okay if you just have a "Frobnicator uses the Foo library, available under the Lesser Gnu Public License" statement in your "about" page, along with the LGPL source available in the program somewhere. I'm not sure I've ever seen just a link to a license, without the actual license text.
One idea might be to just email the developer of the library or the library's mailing list and just ask what you need to do to properly license that library.
And I am not a lawyer, so nothing I've said is necessarily legally true, etc.
LGPL 的两个主要限制是修改和动态链接。 LGPL 是用编译语言编写的，由于 JavaScript 没有编译，我不明白如何链接它。就目前情况而言，LGPL 和 JavaScript 是一个糟糕的组合。
The two major restrictions on the LGPL are modification and dynamic linking. The LGPL was written with compiled languages in mind, and since JavaScript is not compiled, I do not understand how it can be linked. As it stands, the LGPL and JavaScript are a poor combination.
这就是LGPL 的要点：您可以在闭源应用程序中使用它。
而且 - 作为 Javascript - 库本身的源代码无论如何都可以在网络上获得，您可以直接从“关于”页面链接到它。
That's the point of the LGPL: you can use it in your closed source application.
And - being Javascript - the source code of the Library itself is available on the web anyways, you can directly link to it from your "about" page.
LGPL 允许您链接到闭源（商业）应用程序中的 LGPL 库。不需要分发商业应用程序的源代码。
The LGPL allows you to link to the LGPL'd library in a closed-source (commercial) application. Distribution of the source code for the commercial application is not required.