www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:02:19 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13907491#comment-13907491

Roy T. Fielding commented on LEGAL-192:

If the copyright owner wishes an unmodified library to be redistributed under another license,
the best way to do that is to choose a less restrictive open source license that allows sublicensing.
That is not what LGPL allows.

Alternatively, dual-license the unmodified library form. In other words, use a separate license
(not an exception to GPL, but a complete license) for redistribution of the unmodified executable
form of the library within other products. The FSF will not do that, since it conflicts with
GPL and their central mission, but individual copyright owners can. However, if the maintainer
is not a sole copyright owner (they accept contributions from many copyright owners without
an assignment), then dual licensing means going back to all the copyright contributors for

In any case, we do not wish to counteract the ideals held by various Free Software developers.
If they do not wish us to distribute the software they created under a license that serves
our communities, then we will not do so. They can be distributed separately.

> 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