I am writing a little android chess application, and found some chess pieces under LGPL.

To use them people need to be able to modify the pieces or relink to them or a modified copy.

Android lets you have a web page link and i thought i'd state the copyright and license on this page for the pieces. As to letting users modify the pieces , well that's my question.

If i put it in android market without copy protection, could a user extract the apk file, and then get to the resources directory and modify the pieces and then remake an apk file for them to use? I'm fine with them doing this but was not sure if an android application could be tinkered with in this way.

For them to have their modifications read by the program, all they need to do is give any modified pieces the same name.


There is another program that came out that does similar things to my program, selling for like 2.50 American. My primary goal is to have people use my program, and i doubt there's a ton of money after taxes and Google fees if I'm pricing at 1.99 or 1.49 or so. With that said I'm leaning toward making the program free. If i do not publish on android market, just put it on a web page, anyone can download, can i make the password to my digital signature that i used to sign the program available, so people can resign it thus meeting the LGPL re-linking requirement?

Pros and cons of that if anyone know?


I want to add that i have been in communication with the author of the chess pieces, and he had not even been aware of the re-link requirement of LGPL. i.e. they should be able to accept updates to the pieces under lgpl used in the program.

His concern had been that attribution be made and that if anyone changed the actual work, the pieces, that they be bound to keep it under the license. If you were simply using the intact non modified chess pieces, or art work, he just wanted it clear that you acknowledge his authorship and that others are free to use them and they are not yours.

Now he has shown a willingness to republish the chess pieces under another license more fitting for an art work not a library, but i wouldn't have a clue what to suggest and don't want to ask him to change his license if LGPL can be made to work.

Also does anyone know that the author stating he does not object to your use, which he has done, is enough to protect you if someone challenges that you are following LGPL? Or is it legally more like if any user feels his rights are denied under LGPL he can claim injury regardless of if the author himself said there was no issue.


Ive been told that permission from the author if he is the single author and holds the right is enough to use something under lgpl library gnu licence, even if the re-link requirement is hard to figure out if it can be met.

Marking this solved