4

I'm working on a library I would like to license under MIT license (mostly to allow its use in proprietary software).

I'm using APIs of two other libraries, one under MIT, other under LGPLv3.
I'm just linking to these, no code is reused in my project.

Can I use MIT license in this situation?

I mostly found answers and information regarding reuse of LGPL code, which must include LGPL license text, but here I'm only linking. Are there some other considerations?

Improve this question
2
  • Statically or dynamically linked? Commented Feb 5, 2023 at 7:55
  • @planetmaker Dynamically. I'm developing Lua binding to the LGPL library, so it's actually Lua interpreter that dynamically loads my library, and I link dynamically with the LGPL code. I'm obviously #including relevant headers. (Lua API is the MIT one). Commented Feb 5, 2023 at 10:14

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Based on this answer to an earlier question I think my usecase permits using MIT license.

The answer is about LGPLv2.1 but as far as I know LGPLv3 is not dramatically different.
Using only library API and not modifying its code should constitute a Combined Work and can be distributed under any license.

Improve this answer

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.