SFML License Question

[Dani]

Hello!  Currently creating a project and have run into a few issues I want to clear up with the SFML Team.

My question is about the OpenAL Soft LGPL License and the FreeType License.  What is the License Version for OpenAL Soft Version 1.15.1? (It is 4 years old). The current OpenAL Soft Github uses LGPLV2.1.  -- Did it change, or has it always been LGPLV2.1?

Also, in my research it seems as if FreeType License is incompatible with GPLV2.  Does this also mean it is incompatible with LGPLV2?  What about LGPLV2.1?

GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
OpenAL Soft License: https://github.com/kcat/openal-soft/blob/master/COPYING
FreeType License: https://www.freetype.org/license.html

Quote From Freetype:

FreeType comes with two licenses from which you can choose the one which fits your needs best.

The FreeType License (FTL) is the most commonly used one. It is a BSD-style license with a credit clause and thus compatible with the GNU Public License (GPL) version 3, but not with the GPL version 2.

The GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2. Use it for all projects which use the GPLv2 also, or which need a license compatible to the GPLv2.

Quote From GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses:

Freetype Project License (#freetype)
This is a free software license, and compatible with GPLv3. It has some attribution requirements which make it incompatible with GPLv2.

As you can see, this only allows you to use Freetype under GPL.  And if I understand this correctly anything released to third parties must require the code be GPLed and you must also release the source code along with it.

Does this also mean SFML is infact GPL?

If I am wrong, please clear this up!

Thanks!

-- Edited for clarity

[Laurent]

FTL is incompatible with GPLv2, but nothing is said about LGPLv2. So you'll have to find more information (if you can, from a lawyer) because I don't think anyone here knows these licenses well enough to give a reliable answer to that question.

[eXpl0it3r]

Currently creating a project and have run into a few issues

What kind of issues?

What is the License Version for OpenAL Soft Version 1.15.1? (It is 4 years old). The current OpenAL Soft Github uses LGPLV2.1.  -- Did it change, or has it always been LGPLV2.1?

This seems like a question you might want to ask the folks at OpenAL Soft. The Git repository even allows you to easily jump to version 1.15.1.

Also, in my research it seems as if FreeType License is incompatible with GPLV2.  Does this also mean it is incompatible with LGPLV2?  What about LGPLV2.1?

As with most license discussions, if it's really important for your project, you need to get a lawyer.
Any comment you get is that person's best guessed opinion on the matter, which leads to my first question, what are you trying to achieve?

As you can see, this only allows you to use Freetype under GPL.  And if I understand this correctly anything released to third parties must require the code be GPLed and you must also release the source code along with it.

Does this also mean SFML is infact GPL?

Can see what? The quote just mentioned the FreeType License (FTL). Just because it also discusses compatibility with GPL, doesn't mean that FTL suddenly becomes GPL, it is just compatible with GPLv3 (but not GPLv2).
So no. SFML is licensed under zlib/png.

[Dani]

@Laurent : Not here to cause issues -- just want some clarification. Sorry.

@eXpl0it3r :

Issues with the license and their comparability.

What do I want to do?

- Create a commercial application and sell this application.
- Allow other companies to buy the application & source / Allow me to give my source & program to other companies to use it.
- Remain 100% Closed Source.

License Question : Yes I understand.  I am contacting an attorney as we speak.  GPL is very complex and not clear.  I guess my biggest confusion is that SFML dynamically links to this -- which only requires giving third parties access to the libraries source.  And I guess this means you can use the FTL License.

See Edit For Clarification.

Ive contacted an attorney -- so I guess well see what they say.

Thank you!

EDIT - Calrity:

The one big question I have is this : Because I am dynamically linking against OpenAl Soft (and it is LGPLV2.1 ... )

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic

Does the LGPL have different requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered work? (#LGPLStaticVsDynamic)
For the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant version: v2, v2.1 or v3):

(1) If you statically link against an LGPL'd library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application.

(2) If you dynamically link against an LGPL'd library already present on the user's computer, you need not convey the library's source. On the other hand, if you yourself convey the executable LGPL'd library along with your application, whether linked with statically or dynamically, you must also convey the library's sources, in one of the ways for which the LGPL provides.

This is clear -- however -- does this mean the program can use other license that would otherwise be uncomplicated?  For example, Apache Version 2.0, and FreeType License?

[Mario]

If a library you want to use is LGPL you can release your program under any other license you want as long as third parties could (in theory) replace that LGPL library with their own version. It doesn't impact your own work, unless your own work is a modification on the LGPL code.