<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Weak on Your License</title><link>https://yourlicense.ca.dev.prosyon.ca/tags/weak/</link><description>Recent content in Weak on Your License</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-ca</language><atom:link href="https://yourlicense.ca.dev.prosyon.ca/tags/weak/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0</title><link>https://yourlicense.ca.dev.prosyon.ca/licenses/lgpl-3.0/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://yourlicense.ca.dev.prosyon.ca/licenses/lgpl-3.0/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;LGPL-3.0 is a &amp;ldquo;library&amp;rdquo; variant of GPL-3.0. If you modify the LGPL-3.0 library itself, your modifications must be released under LGPL-3.0. If you just use the library — link to it, call its APIs — your own code can stay under any license, even proprietary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;LGPL-3.0 is a good fit for reusable libraries where you want modifications to the library itself to stay open, but you are fine with the library being called from closed-source code.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Mozilla Public License 2.0</title><link>https://yourlicense.ca.dev.prosyon.ca/licenses/mpl-2.0/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://yourlicense.ca.dev.prosyon.ca/licenses/mpl-2.0/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;MPL-2.0 applies copyleft at the file level: if you modify an MPL-2.0 file, that file stays under MPL-2.0, but new files can be under a different license. This makes it easier to combine MPL-2.0 code with proprietary code than GPL or LGPL.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It includes an explicit patent grant and retaliation clause. It is compatible with both GPL and Apache-style licenses, which makes MPL-2.0 a common choice for projects that want some copyleft protection without scaring off commercial users.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>