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 Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:39:23 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13907540#comment-13907540
] 

Lawrence Rosen commented on LEGAL-192:
--------------------------------------

Roy Fielding wrote:
> Section 6 includes restrictions that do not exist in the Apache License and are not desired
by many of our downstream redistributors. 

First Luigi Bai cited section 4 of the LGPL and now Roy cites section 6. The one thing all
of us will agree about is that LGPLv2 is not the best-written FOSS license in existence. :-)
And perhaps we also agree with Roy that it is POLICY and not LAW that stands in our way.

As to that, the one good suggestion made so far was from Jim Jagielski that we ask the FSF
to interpret their own license. I'm willing to wait on their response.

At the end of the day, I hope FSF recommends that ASF allow the combination of our free software
with LGPL software. And I hope our downstream customers appreciate what we're doing on their
behalf.

/Larry

> 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
wishes:
>   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
(v6.1.5#6160)

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


Mime
View raw message