www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:45:21 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13906229#comment-13906229

Lawrence Rosen commented on LEGAL-192:

Roy, your resort to higher knowledge was unhelpful. Please don't argue between yourselves
as to which of you understands the LGPL better. I'll pit my own opinions against yours if
it comes to that. What better ego than the author of a book on the subject. :-)

And my opinion is that Sam Halliday is entirely correct. There is no legal or philosophical
reason to exclude LGPL software as components in Apache projects. Such components are never
"relicensed" under AL2 and they remain under LGPL, and the work as a whole becomes available
under AL2. 

The same rule applies to *all* third party components in Apache projects, ranging from the
BSD to the LGPL license. This is the exact same reasoning that I referred to in my earlier
notes here about our antiquated Third Party Licensing Policy. 

The only license that is incompatible is the GPL, and that is simply because the FSF deems
it to be incompatible. But AFAIK, they've never disavowed combinations of LGPL and Apache
software. Nor should they.


> Why is LGPL not allowed
> -----------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-192
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Sam Halliday
> According to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html the LGPL is not allowed because
>   "The LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it places on larger works,
violating the third license criterion. Therefore, LGPL-licensed works must not be included
in Apache products."
> where part three is
>   "The license must not place restrictions on the distribution of larger works, other
than to require that the covered component still complies with the conditions of its license."
> But I see no conflict here with regard to distribution. The license clearly states that
software which uses LGPL software can be distributed under whatever license the developer
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
> The LGPL does, however, require that any changes to the LGPL component is released as
LGPL (including source code).
> I have an LGPL library and there is a desire to see it included in an Apache project.
Since my project places no constraint on the distribution of the larger work, I do not see
why I should have to change the license in order to comply with these rules.
> If I was using the GPL, I would see your point. But this is the LGPL and it appears to
meet your objectives.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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

View raw message