When talking about open source, the word, "free" is often used. People new to the subject often take it to mean nothing to pay, and open source software licenses do indeed guarantee that you can use the software to develop and deploy systems for no charge. However, the more important meaning here is freedom, since you are free to obtain the source code and modify it in any way you see fit and redeploy it in other systems. These licenses give you this right. Compare that with shareware licenses which allow you to copy the binaries for no cost but do not give you the source code, or other licenses that allow you to use the software for free under certain circumstances, for example, for personal use but not commercial. These are not open source.

I will provide the following comments in the interest of helping you understand the implications of working with open source licenses, but I would like to point out that I am an engineer and not a lawyer. What follows is my understanding of the licenses and the way they are interpreted.

Open source licenses fall broadly into two categories: the GPL (General Public License) from the Free Software Foundation and the permissive licenses derived from BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution), the Apache Foundation, and others.

The permissive licenses say, in essence, that you may modify the source code and use it in systems of your own choosing so long as you do not modify the terms of the license in any way. In other words, with that one restriction, you can do with it what you want, including building it into possibly proprietary systems.

The GPL licenses are similar, but have clauses which compel you to pass the rights to obtain and modify the software on to your end users. In other words you share your source code. One option is to make it completely public by putting it onto a public server. Another is to offer it only to your end users by means of a written offer to provide the code when requested. The GPL goes further to say that you cannot incorporate GPL code into proprietary programs. Any attempt to do so would make the GPL apply to the whole. In other words, you cannot combine GPL and proprietary code in one program.

So, what about libraries? If they are licensed with the GPL, any program linked with them becomes GPL also. However, most libraries are licensed under the Lesser General Public License (LGPL). If this is the case, you are allowed to link with them from a proprietary program.

All of the preceding description relates specifically to GPL v2 and LGPL v2.1. I should mention the latest versions of GPL v3 and LGPL v3. These are controversial, and I will admit that I don't fully understand the implications. However, the intention is to ensure that the GPLv3 and LGPL v3 components in any system can be replaced by the end user, which is in the spirit of open source software for everyone. It does pose some problems though. Some Linux devices are used to gain access to information according to a subscription level or another restriction, and replacing critical parts of the software may compromise that. Set-top boxes fit into this category. There are also issues with security. If the owner of a device has access to the system code, then so might an unwelcome intruder. Often the defense is to have kernel images that are signed by an authority, the vendor, so that unauthorized updates are not possible. Is that an infringement of my right to modify my device? Opinions differ.