Licensing question ?

[JPDelprat]

Hello,

I would like to use this library to develop a tool that will be used internally at work by myself and my colleagues.

The application is intended for internal use only and will not be distributed to clients. However, it may be included in a directory that is delivered as part of a compiled application (a "binary" folder), although the tool itself is not meant for client use.

If I understand correctly, the UI.WPF.Modern and UI.WPF libraries are licensed under LGPL-2.1. As licenses are often a bit unclear, I’d like to confirm:

Am I allowed to use the libraries in this way under the LGPL-2.1?

If I need to include any licensing information, do you provide a template or a standard text file I can copy?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Best regards,

[NotYoojun]

Hello,

Thank you for reaching out and clarifying your use case. To summarize and clarify the licensing terms:

Internal Use and Distribution

You are completely free to use the libraries (iNKORE.UI.WPF.Modern and iNKORE.UI.WPF) internally within your company. However, you mentioned the application may be included in a directory delivered as part of a compiled application (e.g., in a "binary" folder). If this binary folder is distributed externally, even if the tool itself is not intended for direct client use, this constitutes external distribution under our licensing terms.

To remain compliant, please ensure either that your internal tool is strictly excluded from any externally delivered compiled application packages or binaries, or that you adhere to commercial licensing terms if you choose to distribute it externally.

Optional Commercial Subscription

Should your distribution scenario change or you need to distribute the tool externally, we offer a flexible subscription model, which involves a monthly subscription (more like a donation, because we don't profit from that and your donation will go straight to server running and other costs that we're incurring), to support our continued development efforts and comply with licensing requirements using our libraries for commercial purposes.

We currently do not limit the charge to a specific amount, so you can choose the amount that fits your budget. Just donate as much as you value our work.

Feel free to ask if you need further clarification or assistance.

Best regards,

[JPDelprat]

Thank you for your response.

I’m just a bit surprised by the commercial implications.
From what I’ve found during my research on LGPL 2.1, it appears that the license allows commercial use, provided that the library is used as a dynamic link library (i.e., a .dll and not statically linked), and that proper attribution is given to the original author.

Could you please provide more details or clarification on this point?

Best regards

[NotYoojun]

This project is not simply licensed under LGPLv2.1.
You may check the LICENSE file:

UI.WPF.Modern/LICENSE

Line 2 in 5c5e772

COMING ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS (SEE THE END OF THIS FILE).

UI.WPF.Modern/LICENSE

Lines 462 to 466 in 5c5e772

	// ------------------------------------------------------------------------
	ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS
	The following additional requirements apply to the use of this software:

[JPDelprat]

Thank you,
I thought I had found something like this, but I wasn’t able to find it again!

[JPDelprat]

What about this part, in my specific case :

"2. All code that uses this project must be fully open source, regardless
of whether it is referenced, linked, or used in any other form."

I've developed a tool for internal use at work, but unfortunately it's not possible for me to make it open source (and the tool wouldn't make sense outside of that context anyway).
Given this, would I need to revert to the original project (https://github.com/Kinnara/ModernWpf), or would I need to create my own implementation?

That's unfortunate — I had checked the license before selecting your library, but at the time I only saw LGPL 2.1. The current terms are quite different.

Best regards

[NotYoojun]

You can do either:

• Pay an affordable monthly donation and use the library for commercial without open-sourcing your project.
• Switch to another library that suits your needs.
• Make your tool strictly internal and do not distrubute publicly and you can do whatever you want.

We're no charity. We won't let anyone profit off our hard work while we can't even keep ourselves fed and clothed, digging into our own pockets just to barely keep the servers running and development going.

[JPDelprat]

I completely understand, and I really appreciate your work.

Of course, you're absolutely free to choose whatever licensing model you think is best.

I’d just suggest making the distinction from plain LGPL 2.1 a bit more visible — perhaps something like the following, since that’s likely the first thing people check:

This project partly uses the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) v2.1
COMING ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS (SEE THE END OF THIS FILE).

                GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                     Version 2.1, February 1999
             !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      >>>>> WARNING - WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS  <<<<<
             !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA

From your previous response, I understood that it's fine to use your library as long as the tool is strictly internal to my company and not included in any files delivered to customers — even if it's not actually used.

This is what I will do.

That said, I was still unsure about the following clause, which is why I sent my previous message.

"2. All code that uses this project must be fully open source, regardless
of whether it is referenced, linked, or used in any other form."

Since my tool is internal but not open source, I wasn't sure how to interpret or comply with that sentence.

I hope my message didn’t come across the wrong way — I truly appreciate your work and the effort you’ve put into this project.

[NotYoojun]

Hi, we're working on refining the LICENSE file for better clarity, and it will be finished soon.

We're completely removing LGPL to avoid confusion and adopting a customized license.

Since your tool is internally used, as long as it is not distributed, you can feel free to use it with your colleagues in your company.

We're sorry if the license frustrated you and we'll struggle to provide better clarity in the future.