diff-lcs safe for commercial use?Ruby gem package · License: MIT AND Artistic-1.0-Perl AND GPL-2.0-or-later
diff-lcs is licensed under MIT AND Artistic-1.0-Perl AND GPL-2.0-or-later. That triggers obligations in 3 of the 5 common shipping models, so whether it is safe for you depends on how you ship.
| How you ship it | Result | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Hosted SaaS | Needs review | Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure. |
| Distributed binary / app | Obligation triggered | Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is distributed binary or application, which triggers that obligation. |
| Delivered to customer | Obligation triggered | Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is software delivered to a customer environment, which triggers that obligation. |
| Internal use only | Needs review | Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is internal use only, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure. |
| Published library | Obligation triggered | Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is a published library, which triggers that obligation. |
Attribution
If you only use it at build time, the answer changes.
Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / GPL-2.0-or-later appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
diff-lcs is licensed under MIT AND Artistic-1.0-Perl AND GPL-2.0-or-later. That triggers obligations in 3 of the 5 common shipping models, so whether it is safe for you depends on how you ship.
Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is hosted SaaS, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure.
Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is distributed binary or application, which triggers that obligation.
Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is software delivered to a customer environment, which triggers that obligation.
Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later triggers its obligations on distribution. Your distribution model is internal use only, which is not distribution, so no obligation arises today. Shipping this software later — on-premises delivery, a binary, or a published library — would trigger whole-work source disclosure.
Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl does not match a known license identifier. The license text needs individual review. / GPL-2.0-or-later requires that a work incorporating it, when distributed, be licensed as a whole under the same terms with corresponding source made available. Your distribution model is a published library, which triggers that obligation.
Multiple licenses apply at once. MIT appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / Multiple licenses apply at once. Artistic-1.0-Perl appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually. / GPL-2.0-or-later appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
This page covers one package. Your Gemfile.lock has many more.
Check your whole manifest →The license was read from the Ruby gem registry, then evaluated against each shipping model. Only the declared license is considered; code copied into a project's own source files is not detected by this method.
License data last reviewed .
LicenseGuard reports information derived from published license texts and dependency manifests. It is not legal advice and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results reflect license metadata as declared; they do not identify every obligation or violation. Consult qualified counsel for decisions that matter.
Listed in the official MCP registry, on Glama and on Smithery. Source on GitHub (Apache-2.0).