rchardet safe for commercial use?Ruby gem package · License: LGPL
rchardet is licensed under LGPL. Nothing below is blocked, but it carries a source-disclosure obligation — what triggers it differs by how you ship, so read the table. Note that "LGPL" does not name a specific version — the stricter reading (LGPL-3.0-only) is used below, so confirm the actual version against the project's own LICENSE file.
| How you ship it | Result | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Hosted SaaS | No obligation | LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it. |
| Distributed binary / app | No obligation | LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it. |
| Delivered to customer | No obligation | LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it. |
| Internal use only | No obligation | LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it. |
| Published library | No obligation | LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it. |
Source disclosureAttribution
If you only use it at build time, the answer changes.
LGPL-3.0-only 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.
rchardet is licensed under LGPL. Nothing below is blocked, but it carries a source-disclosure obligation — what triggers it differs by how you ship, so read the table. Note that "LGPL" does not name a specific version — the stricter reading (LGPL-3.0-only) is used below, so confirm the actual version against the project's own LICENSE file.
LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it.
LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it.
LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it.
LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it.
LGPL-3.0-only requires publishing modifications to the library itself, but under dynamic linking that obligation does not extend to the code that calls it.
LGPL-3.0-only 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).