Thank you for your reply.
Yes, I know that I don’t need to release the software which uses LGPL libraries under the LGPL license
and I can use LGPL libraries with proprietary programs.
But the software needs to follow the requirements in section 6 of the LGPL.
In “The LGPL and Java”
FSF’s position has remained constant throughout: the LGPL works as intended with all known programming languages, including Java. Applications which link to LGPL libraries need not be released under the LGPL. Applications need only follow the requirements in section 6 of the LGPL: allow new versions of the library to be linked with the application; and allow reverse engineering to debug this.
If you distribute a Java application that imports LGPL libraries, it’s easy to comply with the LGPL. Your application’s license needs to allow users to modify the library, and reverse engineer your code to debug these modifications. This doesn’t mean you need to provide source code or any details about the internals of your application. Of course, some changes the users may make to the library may break the interface, rendering the library unable to work with your application. You don’t need to worry about that—people who modify the library are responsible for making it work.
Then, I want to know that the software, which depends on Tinder, needs to follow the requirements in section 6 of the LGPL or not?
- The software depends on Tinder.
- Tinder is released under the Apache 2.0 License, not LGPL.
- The software does not depend on LibIDN directly.
- No “import” functionality to access LibIDN classes.
- But the software needs LibIDN for the execution, because Tinder depends on LibIDN.
I think this case is not clear in LGPL and “The LGPL and Java”.
I am at a loss what to do.
Please give me a piece of advice.