[Libwebsockets] License obligations

Andy Green andy at warmcat.com
Tue May 4 19:40:16 CEST 2021



On 5/4/21 6:13 PM, krushith rao wrote:
> Hello Andy Green
> 
> Thank you so much for the information.
> I have found LGPL 2.1 components at 
> *libwebsockets-4.1-stable/lib/abstract/protocols/smtp/smtp-sequencer.c* 
> & *libwebsockets-4.1-stable/include/libwebsockets/lws-mqtt.h*, which was 
> not included in the license folder of your repository. If you have 

Ugh... these are accidents that did not get updated when the rest of lws 
changed license to MIT.  Thanks for pointing them out.

I pushed a patch on main, v4.2-stable, and v4.1-stable changing them to 
MIT (that they were already intended to be).

-Andy

> linked those specific components statically, please let me know.
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> Sandy
> 
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 5:07 PM Andy Green <andy at warmcat.com 
> <mailto:andy at warmcat.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 5/4/21 2:29 PM, krushith rao wrote:
>      > Hello,
>      >
>      > I am using libwebsockets to build a commercial application. Since
>      > libwebsockets is under MIT license, I need to provide attribution
>     and
>      > copyright notice in the redistribution of my application.
>      > Unfortunately, I have found that in the license folder that
> 
>     ...
> 
>      > libwebsockets also includes other programms which are under
>     different
>      > permissive licenses like BSD clause 2, Apache 2.0 and Public domain
>      > license. So, to comply with license of the other components
>     included in
>      > the libwebsockets, do i need to provide a copy of BSD clause -2,
>     apache
>      > 2.0 and public domain license in the redistribution of my
>     application.
> 
>     I Am Not A Lawyer, but from my side for my code, it's OK for me if you
>     point to ./LICENSE in the version of lws gitweb you built, something
>     like
> 
>     https://libwebsockets.org/git/libwebsockets/tree/LICENSE?h=v4.2-stable
>     <https://libwebsockets.org/git/libwebsockets/tree/LICENSE?h=v4.2-stable>
> 
>     since that file describes the main license and the gnarly details.
> 
>     To help with that, I bolstered what's in LICENSE on main with copies of
>     the mentioned licenses from the sources elsewhere in lws.  There is no
>     change to the license, it's just copying the unchanged license text
>     from
>     some lws files into one place as an additional convenience after the
>     license stuff that was already there.
> 
>     Apart from MIT, and CC0 which has no requirements on you, the imported
>     pieces are only built into binaries under specific circumstances.
> 
>        - BSD3: the related SHA-1 implementation for ws is only built if you
>     a) use we protocol with lws, and b) don't build with
>     `-DLWS_WITHOUT_BUILTIN_SHA1=1` ... that disables the code in question
>     and uses the tls library sha-1 instead.
> 
>        - ZLIB: zlib... this is not built into your binary by default, you
>     have to enable `-DLWS_WITH_ZLIB=1` and then be building for windows
>     before it gets built into lws.  So unless you did that, the license
>     won't apply to the binary since no zlib code is built.
> 
>        - APACHE2: this is for the mbedtls wrapper, if you build against
>     anything except mbedtls (openssl, wolfssl, libressl, boringssl etc) it
>     will not apply to your binary since it's not built in there.
> 
>     So AIUI you have a way to avoid having to deal with the requirements of
>     those additional licenses **for binary distribution** by ensuring the
>     related code was not built into your binary.  For source distribution,
>     you have to observe them, but AFAIK just serving someone the unchanged
>     tarball is compliant for that.
> 
>     You can also send patches with MIT-licensed alternatives I can swap
>     these things out for.  But I think you will find, if you have to
>     consider that, it's not really so "unfortunate" we got some free
>     implementations we can use or base off without rewriting them.  It'd be
>     ideal if everyone agreed on one liberal license so no impedance
>     mismatch
>     (some of the composed code was already MIT, so it does happen), but
>     that's not how it is out there at the moment.
> 
>     -Andy
> 
> 
>      > If so, please let me know.
>      >
>      > Thanks in advance
>      >
>      > Regards,
>      > sand
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Libwebsockets mailing list
>      > Libwebsockets at ml.libwebsockets.org
>     <mailto:Libwebsockets at ml.libwebsockets.org>
>      > https://libwebsockets.org/mailman/listinfo/libwebsockets
>     <https://libwebsockets.org/mailman/listinfo/libwebsockets>
>      >
> 


More information about the Libwebsockets mailing list