GPLv2 - licensing for commercial useWould I violate anything if I use vlclib for android in my closed-source app?Is it legal to charge for distributing the source of a software which uses GPLv2 components?GNU GPL LicensingCan I distribute unmodified GPLv2 binaries without the source code?How can a GPLv2 dependency affect licensing of adjacent components that form an aggregate project?Using GPL licensed library over a service for non-GPL softwareslicense - how to skip GPLv2Is this restriction of Cheerp community edition in violation of GPLv2?FPDF & GPLv2 & distributing changed codeEffect of 'download separately' on GPL linking

How to make healing in an exploration game interesting

Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?

Are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks?

Is there a symmetric-key algorithm which we can use for creating a signature?

PTIJ: Who should I vote for? (21st Knesset Edition)

Do the common programs (for example: "ls", "cat") in Linux and BSD come from the same source code?

What is the Japanese sound word for the clinking of money?

Shortcut for setting origin to vertex

Is "upgrade" the right word to use in this context?

Bacteria contamination inside a thermos bottle

Recruiter wants very extensive technical details about all of my previous work

Instead of a Universal Basic Income program, why not implement a "Universal Basic Needs" program?

Meme-controlled people

Equivalents to the present tense

Why do newer 737s use two different styles of split winglets?

Is a party consisting of only a bard, a cleric, and a warlock functional long-term?

Most cost effective thermostat setting: consistent temperature vs. lowest temperature possible

Describing a chess game in a novel

What is the purpose or proof behind chain rule?

What's the meaning of a knight fighting a snail in medieval book illustrations?

Tikz picture of two mathematical functions

Fastest way to pop N items from a large dict

Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor breaks the "no parallel octaves" rule?

What is "focus distance lower/upper" and how is it different from depth of field?



GPLv2 - licensing for commercial use


Would I violate anything if I use vlclib for android in my closed-source app?Is it legal to charge for distributing the source of a software which uses GPLv2 components?GNU GPL LicensingCan I distribute unmodified GPLv2 binaries without the source code?How can a GPLv2 dependency affect licensing of adjacent components that form an aggregate project?Using GPL licensed library over a service for non-GPL softwareslicense - how to skip GPLv2Is this restriction of Cheerp community edition in violation of GPLv2?FPDF & GPLv2 & distributing changed codeEffect of 'download separately' on GPL linking













4















I have a few questions regarding the GPLv2 license:



  1. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files?


  2. If I use the v2 license, but charge for use, do users HAVE to purchase my license in order to use it?


  3. What is the alternative license in creating software if I want to charge for it?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Cptn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    4















    I have a few questions regarding the GPLv2 license:



    1. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files?


    2. If I use the v2 license, but charge for use, do users HAVE to purchase my license in order to use it?


    3. What is the alternative license in creating software if I want to charge for it?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Cptn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      4












      4








      4








      I have a few questions regarding the GPLv2 license:



      1. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files?


      2. If I use the v2 license, but charge for use, do users HAVE to purchase my license in order to use it?


      3. What is the alternative license in creating software if I want to charge for it?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Cptn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      I have a few questions regarding the GPLv2 license:



      1. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files?


      2. If I use the v2 license, but charge for use, do users HAVE to purchase my license in order to use it?


      3. What is the alternative license in creating software if I want to charge for it?







      licensing commercial gpl-2






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Cptn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Cptn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Mar 12 at 13:45









      unor

      3,8591443




      3,8591443






      New contributor




      Cptn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked Mar 12 at 6:42









      CptnCptn

      241




      241




      New contributor




      Cptn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Cptn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Cptn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          12














          1. Yes, to people to whom you have distributed the binary.


          2. No, they can also get it from someone else who has a (presumably paid-for) binary, and lawfully use that copy. Because GPLv2 s3 says "You may copy and distribute the Program ... in object code or executable form" someone who gets the software from you has the right to copy it for their friends, and because s0 says "The act of running the Program is not restricted" anyone who comes into possession of such a copy may use it. s6 makes their position even clearer: it explicitly gives them a licence from you to do so.


          3. The GNU GPL is fine with you charging for your software; it just requires you to deliver freedom along with your binary. If what you're asking is "what licence should I use if I want to charge for my software and forbid my paying users from exercising the freedoms associated with free software", that would be off-topic for this site.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            When I see the phrase "deliver freedom", I envision an accompanying Team America: World Police montage.

            – R.M.
            Mar 12 at 15:55











          • Keep in mind that the first user of the software is going to have to pay for it, if you refuse to license your software to anyone under the GPL except for payment and you start out with the only copy. So you might want to set a high initial price.

            – interfect
            Mar 12 at 18:12


















          1















          1. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files?



          No, you don't. You are not bound by the terms of the license. The purpose of a license is to give you rights that you wouldn't otherwise have … but as the copyright holder and / or author, you have all rights anyway. Therefore, you don't have to provide the source code.



          BUT! It would not make sense.



          Presumably, you chose the GPLv2 for a reason. But without access to the source, the recipients of your license cannot do what the GPLv2 allows them to do. So, you don't legally need to provide the source code, but practically it doesn't make sense to release software under the GPLv2 without source code.




          1. If I use the v2 license, but charge for use, do users HAVE to purchase my license in order to use it?



          No. Only the first one. All the other ones could theoretically get the software from the first one, who can legally re-distribute it under the terms of the GPLv2.



          However, there is nothing that guarantees that the first user will actually re-distribute it. The GPLv2 allows it, it doesn't force it.




          1. What is the alternative license in creating software if I want to charge for it?



          Actually, it is perfectly possible to charge money and make profit off GPLv2-licensed software:



          • Just because the GPLv2 allows your users to re-distribute the software doesn't mean they will.

          • Some (corporate) users want to pay for software, or actually, they want to pay for the possibility of having a contract with someone that they can sue if the software turns out to hurt their business in some way.

          • You don't sell the software, you sell support and services related to the software. Maybe you give training on how to efficiently use the software, maybe you give extended support contracts, maybe you sell bespoke feature development.

          • A lot of high-profile projects have an "open core" model, where the core and basic functionality is open source, but the real value of the product is in extensions and plugins, some of which are commercial and proprietary.





          share|improve this answer























          • Note that if your product includes third-party GPLv2 code then you do have to release the source to comply with the third party's license.

            – immibis
            Mar 12 at 20:32










          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "619"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );






          Cptn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8064%2fgplv2-licensing-for-commercial-use%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          12














          1. Yes, to people to whom you have distributed the binary.


          2. No, they can also get it from someone else who has a (presumably paid-for) binary, and lawfully use that copy. Because GPLv2 s3 says "You may copy and distribute the Program ... in object code or executable form" someone who gets the software from you has the right to copy it for their friends, and because s0 says "The act of running the Program is not restricted" anyone who comes into possession of such a copy may use it. s6 makes their position even clearer: it explicitly gives them a licence from you to do so.


          3. The GNU GPL is fine with you charging for your software; it just requires you to deliver freedom along with your binary. If what you're asking is "what licence should I use if I want to charge for my software and forbid my paying users from exercising the freedoms associated with free software", that would be off-topic for this site.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            When I see the phrase "deliver freedom", I envision an accompanying Team America: World Police montage.

            – R.M.
            Mar 12 at 15:55











          • Keep in mind that the first user of the software is going to have to pay for it, if you refuse to license your software to anyone under the GPL except for payment and you start out with the only copy. So you might want to set a high initial price.

            – interfect
            Mar 12 at 18:12















          12














          1. Yes, to people to whom you have distributed the binary.


          2. No, they can also get it from someone else who has a (presumably paid-for) binary, and lawfully use that copy. Because GPLv2 s3 says "You may copy and distribute the Program ... in object code or executable form" someone who gets the software from you has the right to copy it for their friends, and because s0 says "The act of running the Program is not restricted" anyone who comes into possession of such a copy may use it. s6 makes their position even clearer: it explicitly gives them a licence from you to do so.


          3. The GNU GPL is fine with you charging for your software; it just requires you to deliver freedom along with your binary. If what you're asking is "what licence should I use if I want to charge for my software and forbid my paying users from exercising the freedoms associated with free software", that would be off-topic for this site.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            When I see the phrase "deliver freedom", I envision an accompanying Team America: World Police montage.

            – R.M.
            Mar 12 at 15:55











          • Keep in mind that the first user of the software is going to have to pay for it, if you refuse to license your software to anyone under the GPL except for payment and you start out with the only copy. So you might want to set a high initial price.

            – interfect
            Mar 12 at 18:12













          12












          12








          12







          1. Yes, to people to whom you have distributed the binary.


          2. No, they can also get it from someone else who has a (presumably paid-for) binary, and lawfully use that copy. Because GPLv2 s3 says "You may copy and distribute the Program ... in object code or executable form" someone who gets the software from you has the right to copy it for their friends, and because s0 says "The act of running the Program is not restricted" anyone who comes into possession of such a copy may use it. s6 makes their position even clearer: it explicitly gives them a licence from you to do so.


          3. The GNU GPL is fine with you charging for your software; it just requires you to deliver freedom along with your binary. If what you're asking is "what licence should I use if I want to charge for my software and forbid my paying users from exercising the freedoms associated with free software", that would be off-topic for this site.






          share|improve this answer















          1. Yes, to people to whom you have distributed the binary.


          2. No, they can also get it from someone else who has a (presumably paid-for) binary, and lawfully use that copy. Because GPLv2 s3 says "You may copy and distribute the Program ... in object code or executable form" someone who gets the software from you has the right to copy it for their friends, and because s0 says "The act of running the Program is not restricted" anyone who comes into possession of such a copy may use it. s6 makes their position even clearer: it explicitly gives them a licence from you to do so.


          3. The GNU GPL is fine with you charging for your software; it just requires you to deliver freedom along with your binary. If what you're asking is "what licence should I use if I want to charge for my software and forbid my paying users from exercising the freedoms associated with free software", that would be off-topic for this site.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 12 at 11:07

























          answered Mar 12 at 7:23









          MadHatterMadHatter

          9,5971837




          9,5971837







          • 3





            When I see the phrase "deliver freedom", I envision an accompanying Team America: World Police montage.

            – R.M.
            Mar 12 at 15:55











          • Keep in mind that the first user of the software is going to have to pay for it, if you refuse to license your software to anyone under the GPL except for payment and you start out with the only copy. So you might want to set a high initial price.

            – interfect
            Mar 12 at 18:12












          • 3





            When I see the phrase "deliver freedom", I envision an accompanying Team America: World Police montage.

            – R.M.
            Mar 12 at 15:55











          • Keep in mind that the first user of the software is going to have to pay for it, if you refuse to license your software to anyone under the GPL except for payment and you start out with the only copy. So you might want to set a high initial price.

            – interfect
            Mar 12 at 18:12







          3




          3





          When I see the phrase "deliver freedom", I envision an accompanying Team America: World Police montage.

          – R.M.
          Mar 12 at 15:55





          When I see the phrase "deliver freedom", I envision an accompanying Team America: World Police montage.

          – R.M.
          Mar 12 at 15:55













          Keep in mind that the first user of the software is going to have to pay for it, if you refuse to license your software to anyone under the GPL except for payment and you start out with the only copy. So you might want to set a high initial price.

          – interfect
          Mar 12 at 18:12





          Keep in mind that the first user of the software is going to have to pay for it, if you refuse to license your software to anyone under the GPL except for payment and you start out with the only copy. So you might want to set a high initial price.

          – interfect
          Mar 12 at 18:12











          1















          1. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files?



          No, you don't. You are not bound by the terms of the license. The purpose of a license is to give you rights that you wouldn't otherwise have … but as the copyright holder and / or author, you have all rights anyway. Therefore, you don't have to provide the source code.



          BUT! It would not make sense.



          Presumably, you chose the GPLv2 for a reason. But without access to the source, the recipients of your license cannot do what the GPLv2 allows them to do. So, you don't legally need to provide the source code, but practically it doesn't make sense to release software under the GPLv2 without source code.




          1. If I use the v2 license, but charge for use, do users HAVE to purchase my license in order to use it?



          No. Only the first one. All the other ones could theoretically get the software from the first one, who can legally re-distribute it under the terms of the GPLv2.



          However, there is nothing that guarantees that the first user will actually re-distribute it. The GPLv2 allows it, it doesn't force it.




          1. What is the alternative license in creating software if I want to charge for it?



          Actually, it is perfectly possible to charge money and make profit off GPLv2-licensed software:



          • Just because the GPLv2 allows your users to re-distribute the software doesn't mean they will.

          • Some (corporate) users want to pay for software, or actually, they want to pay for the possibility of having a contract with someone that they can sue if the software turns out to hurt their business in some way.

          • You don't sell the software, you sell support and services related to the software. Maybe you give training on how to efficiently use the software, maybe you give extended support contracts, maybe you sell bespoke feature development.

          • A lot of high-profile projects have an "open core" model, where the core and basic functionality is open source, but the real value of the product is in extensions and plugins, some of which are commercial and proprietary.





          share|improve this answer























          • Note that if your product includes third-party GPLv2 code then you do have to release the source to comply with the third party's license.

            – immibis
            Mar 12 at 20:32















          1















          1. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files?



          No, you don't. You are not bound by the terms of the license. The purpose of a license is to give you rights that you wouldn't otherwise have … but as the copyright holder and / or author, you have all rights anyway. Therefore, you don't have to provide the source code.



          BUT! It would not make sense.



          Presumably, you chose the GPLv2 for a reason. But without access to the source, the recipients of your license cannot do what the GPLv2 allows them to do. So, you don't legally need to provide the source code, but practically it doesn't make sense to release software under the GPLv2 without source code.




          1. If I use the v2 license, but charge for use, do users HAVE to purchase my license in order to use it?



          No. Only the first one. All the other ones could theoretically get the software from the first one, who can legally re-distribute it under the terms of the GPLv2.



          However, there is nothing that guarantees that the first user will actually re-distribute it. The GPLv2 allows it, it doesn't force it.




          1. What is the alternative license in creating software if I want to charge for it?



          Actually, it is perfectly possible to charge money and make profit off GPLv2-licensed software:



          • Just because the GPLv2 allows your users to re-distribute the software doesn't mean they will.

          • Some (corporate) users want to pay for software, or actually, they want to pay for the possibility of having a contract with someone that they can sue if the software turns out to hurt their business in some way.

          • You don't sell the software, you sell support and services related to the software. Maybe you give training on how to efficiently use the software, maybe you give extended support contracts, maybe you sell bespoke feature development.

          • A lot of high-profile projects have an "open core" model, where the core and basic functionality is open source, but the real value of the product is in extensions and plugins, some of which are commercial and proprietary.





          share|improve this answer























          • Note that if your product includes third-party GPLv2 code then you do have to release the source to comply with the third party's license.

            – immibis
            Mar 12 at 20:32













          1












          1








          1








          1. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files?



          No, you don't. You are not bound by the terms of the license. The purpose of a license is to give you rights that you wouldn't otherwise have … but as the copyright holder and / or author, you have all rights anyway. Therefore, you don't have to provide the source code.



          BUT! It would not make sense.



          Presumably, you chose the GPLv2 for a reason. But without access to the source, the recipients of your license cannot do what the GPLv2 allows them to do. So, you don't legally need to provide the source code, but practically it doesn't make sense to release software under the GPLv2 without source code.




          1. If I use the v2 license, but charge for use, do users HAVE to purchase my license in order to use it?



          No. Only the first one. All the other ones could theoretically get the software from the first one, who can legally re-distribute it under the terms of the GPLv2.



          However, there is nothing that guarantees that the first user will actually re-distribute it. The GPLv2 allows it, it doesn't force it.




          1. What is the alternative license in creating software if I want to charge for it?



          Actually, it is perfectly possible to charge money and make profit off GPLv2-licensed software:



          • Just because the GPLv2 allows your users to re-distribute the software doesn't mean they will.

          • Some (corporate) users want to pay for software, or actually, they want to pay for the possibility of having a contract with someone that they can sue if the software turns out to hurt their business in some way.

          • You don't sell the software, you sell support and services related to the software. Maybe you give training on how to efficiently use the software, maybe you give extended support contracts, maybe you sell bespoke feature development.

          • A lot of high-profile projects have an "open core" model, where the core and basic functionality is open source, but the real value of the product is in extensions and plugins, some of which are commercial and proprietary.





          share|improve this answer














          1. For it to be GPLv2, I need provide access to my source files?



          No, you don't. You are not bound by the terms of the license. The purpose of a license is to give you rights that you wouldn't otherwise have … but as the copyright holder and / or author, you have all rights anyway. Therefore, you don't have to provide the source code.



          BUT! It would not make sense.



          Presumably, you chose the GPLv2 for a reason. But without access to the source, the recipients of your license cannot do what the GPLv2 allows them to do. So, you don't legally need to provide the source code, but practically it doesn't make sense to release software under the GPLv2 without source code.




          1. If I use the v2 license, but charge for use, do users HAVE to purchase my license in order to use it?



          No. Only the first one. All the other ones could theoretically get the software from the first one, who can legally re-distribute it under the terms of the GPLv2.



          However, there is nothing that guarantees that the first user will actually re-distribute it. The GPLv2 allows it, it doesn't force it.




          1. What is the alternative license in creating software if I want to charge for it?



          Actually, it is perfectly possible to charge money and make profit off GPLv2-licensed software:



          • Just because the GPLv2 allows your users to re-distribute the software doesn't mean they will.

          • Some (corporate) users want to pay for software, or actually, they want to pay for the possibility of having a contract with someone that they can sue if the software turns out to hurt their business in some way.

          • You don't sell the software, you sell support and services related to the software. Maybe you give training on how to efficiently use the software, maybe you give extended support contracts, maybe you sell bespoke feature development.

          • A lot of high-profile projects have an "open core" model, where the core and basic functionality is open source, but the real value of the product is in extensions and plugins, some of which are commercial and proprietary.






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 12 at 19:57









          Jörg W MittagJörg W Mittag

          51425




          51425












          • Note that if your product includes third-party GPLv2 code then you do have to release the source to comply with the third party's license.

            – immibis
            Mar 12 at 20:32

















          • Note that if your product includes third-party GPLv2 code then you do have to release the source to comply with the third party's license.

            – immibis
            Mar 12 at 20:32
















          Note that if your product includes third-party GPLv2 code then you do have to release the source to comply with the third party's license.

          – immibis
          Mar 12 at 20:32





          Note that if your product includes third-party GPLv2 code then you do have to release the source to comply with the third party's license.

          – immibis
          Mar 12 at 20:32










          Cptn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          Cptn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Cptn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











          Cptn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














          Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8064%2fgplv2-licensing-for-commercial-use%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

          random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

          Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye