https://github.com/neogic/improved-pngquant-mingw

I would like to ask you some questions about LGPL, I’ve used a library
written on PHP with license LGPL, I want to make software and I’m not
license it using LGPL or GPL,

The libraries is class form
I had modified the libraries and make a class to access the library,
and I access the library through that class, but I’m not make it
inheritence from it, I was just make a object definitions

for example
Library’s file is only one
that is libraries.php licensed under LGPL v 2.1

Access_lib.php

and I made another file to access the Access_Lib
for example
Program.php
read(‘data’);
$c = new Database($d0);
…
view($c);
?>

and the above file (Program.php) access several files too ie:
database.php and view.php

As I know that when we used LGPL lincensed libraries, we can make our
software not licenced using LGPL or GPL.
I had few questions about that

1. Had I violated the LGPL License
because I wanted to license my program into something else including
two files that associated with the libraries and several files that
depend on libraries (ie:database.php, view.php), on the above example
and the libraries.php remains LGPL?

2. Do file Access_lib.php and Program.php must be licensed LGPL too
because of I had modificated libraries.php?

I took a portion of LGPL, it’s said that

“2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The modified work must itself be a software library.

b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no
charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

…
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it.
”

3 what is means “whole of the work” on
“c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no
charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.”
does it mean modified copy of libraries.php or whole files that access
the libraries.php like Access_Lib and others, or what exactly it’s
means?

4. what means “derived” here, does any file that use libraries.php is
derived work?
5. which files that must be licensed LGPL, is it only libraries.php?

6. does the explanation about LGPL v 2.1 at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
about these statement

“If you modify your copy or copies of the library or any portion of
it, you may distribute the resulting library provided you do so under
the GNU Lesser General Public License. However, programs that link to
the library may be licensed under terms of your choice, so long as the
library itself can be changed. Any translation of the GNU Lesser
General Public License must be accompanied by the GNU Lesser General
Public License”

is correct and suit what I’ve done in the first question?

I’m sorry for my bad english,
Thank for the incoming explanations, I hope you could help me,

regards

Awaludin

First, it’s great to see you on Twitter.

Second, though, I think you judging this a little too much and thinking about all of this a little too hard man. At the end of the day, if you enjoy it, use it… if you don’t, don’t. Twitter is what you make it, but it’s not for everyone. So, just have fun, whatever you do.

But, I am glad to see you there.

Thanks,

Patrick

One of the most under-rated strengths of ACDSee Pro 2.5 is its RAW image processing capability. I have tried them all (figuratively speaking), and I now use ACDSee Pro 2.5 exclusively for RAW processing. The interface is intuitive and straightforward, the controls are excellent, and it possesses a very robust batch-processing mode whereby RAW presets can be applied across a broad range of photos. This is a great feature.

ACDSee is getting ready to introduce their new version 3.0. They will have a public beta program that should be starting any day now, and I have signed up to participate in that program. Check out the new features included in the new 3.0 by visiting their website. I believe this software will continue to give Lightroom a run for its money — and at much less cost.

One thing I would like to see — which ACDSee does not have — is the ability to use Photoshop-compatible plug-ins.

I’ve added extra columns to my implementation of it to allow me to sort the results in various orders, ie to do things like “find all descendants of node A and order them by creation date”, all using the one index. You could do this with a join and a sort afterwards.