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 17:21:07 GMT

Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> By licensing code under LGPL, my intention is not to force users to
> change their license of their software which uses LGPLed software.
> The LGPL requires the user to permit the reverse-engineering of
> portions of the LGPLed library. Depending on your interpretation, this
> requirement is limited to the usage of the library *or* to the whole
> of the combined work. If the former interpretation is retained, then
> it's an nop requirement. If you "just" use the library, you do not
> have to change your license or do anything specific in relation with
> LGPL. Note that this a very reasonable reading of the LGPL.
> The ASF chose a conservative reading of the reverse-engineering
> requirement. Even if that reading is correct and we will probably
> never know, ASF bending backward to accommodate and protect
> closed-source applications, is not necessarily the only path the
> foundation could have chosen as there are other reasonable paths
> available.

The FSF has a quiz [1] related to the GPL and LGPL.

# START of relevant questions from the quiz =====================

4. Peter creates a library called LibIdo licensed under the Lesser General 
Public License. FooCorp distributes a modified version of the LibIdo library 
linked to their proprietary program Frobber. Which of the following is not an 
obligation of FooCorp?

    1. FooCorp must provide a mechanism for Frobber to be linked against new 
versions of LibIdo.
    2. FooCorp must make available the complete source code to their modified 
version of LibIdo.
    3. FooCorp must note all their modifications to LibIdo.
    4. FooCorp must make available the complete source code to Frobber.

You can find out about this issue in the LGPL, sections 2 and 6.

8. FooCorp distributes Frobber linked against an unmodified version of LibIdo. 
Does the LGPL require FooCorp to allow users to reverse engineer Frobber for 
their own use?

    1. Yes.
    2. No.

You chose 2, but the correct answer was 1.

Section 6 of the LGPL contains the requirements for a "work that uses the library."

# END of relevant questions from the quiz =====================

So, it appears that ASF's conservative interpretation is right and mine is 
wrong. My apologies for the noise.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi

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