www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gulcu <c...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: Move log4cplus' license to ASL 2.0.
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:36:59 GMT
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>> it took a lot of time and effort but AL2.0 and GPL3 settled the
>> remaining licensing issues
> Really? Does this mean that GPL3 and AL2.0 are compatible?

Well, the FSF states [1] that the AL2.0 is considered compatible with
GPL3 and by extension with LGPL3 as far as the FSF is concerned.  How
about the LGPL being (in)compatible with AL2.0 from the ASF's point of

Which LGPL clause is preventing the ASF from considering the LGPL as a
compatible license? Looking at [2,3], it seems that there should be no
problem if an Apache project (written in Java or not) relied on an
LGPLed library.

According to [3], "Applications need only follow the requirements in
section 6 of the LGPL: allow new versions of the library to be linked
with the application; and allow reverse engineering to debug this."

Linking with a new version of the library is a non-issue in Java. Just
replace one jar file of the library with another jar. As for
debugging, and reverse-engineering, the AL2.0 is an open source
license which obviously allows for reverse-engineering.

The only question is then about clients who repackage and republish
Apache licensed software which happens to contain an LGPLed
library. Why should the ASF protect clients who choose to *publish*
their work under a closed license?

I understand that the ASF does not wish to prevent software companies
from building commercial and closed-source products on top of Apache
licensed software.  However, if an Apache project, say P, decides to
rely on LGPLed software, say L, and if some software company, say C,
decides to build a product on top of P, then that's C's problem not
P's. Project P should be free to use L. Project P should only be
required to clearly state that they use LGPLed software but that
should be it. If company C still wishes to build a product on top of
P, then that's C's problem not P's.

Isn't the ASF being more royalist than the king in this case?

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html

Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message