www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Halliday (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:59:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13907586#comment-13907586
] 

Sam Halliday edited comment on LEGAL-192 at 2/20/14 9:57 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

I am referring to version 3, located here, which seems to differ from the version discussed
in many of the threads linked above (apologies, I originally linked to an older version):

  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

This defines a "Combined Work" as an "Application" linked with the "Library". With a particular
version of the Library being called the "Linked Version".

The "Minimal Corresponding Source" (which has to be made available) means the source **excluding**
any source that is based on the Application.

The following is the strongest FSF interpretation of the LGPL for Java that I've been able
to find: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html

  "Applications which link to LGPL libraries need not be released under the LGPL. Applications
need only follow the requirements in section 4 [for this version] of the LGPL: allow new versions
of the library to be linked with the application; and allow reverse engineering to debug this.

  If you distribute a Java application ... your license needs to allow users to modify the
library ... This doesn't mean you need to provide source code or any details about the internals
of your application.
  
  When you distribute the library ... you need to include source code for the library. But
if your application instead requires users to obtain the library on their own, you don't need
to provide source code for the library."


I would also like to hear a more recent comment from the FSF on this discussion because I
feel it would help bring this matter to a positive conclusion.

In anticipation of a response from the FSF, what exactly would the Apache Foundation like
to have clarified? Is there a list of questions and realistic situations that you would like
the FSF to consider and reply to?



was (Author: fommil):
I am referring to version 3, located here, which seems to differ from the version discussed
in many of the threads linked above:

  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

This defines a "Combined Work" as an "Application" linked with the "Library". With a particular
version of the Library being called the "Linked Version".

The "Minimal Corresponding Source" (which has to be made available) means the source **excluding**
any source that is based on the Application.

The following is the strongest FSF interpretation of the LGPL for Java that I've been able
to find: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html

  "Applications which link to LGPL libraries need not be released under the LGPL. Applications
need only follow the requirements in section 4 [for this version] of the LGPL: allow new versions
of the library to be linked with the application; and allow reverse engineering to debug this.

  If you distribute a Java application ... your license needs to allow users to modify the
library ... This doesn't mean you need to provide source code or any details about the internals
of your application.
  
  When you distribute the library ... you need to include source code for the library. But
if your application instead requires users to obtain the library on their own, you don't need
to provide source code for the library."


I would also like to hear a more recent comment from the FSF on this discussion because I
feel it would help bring this matter to a positive conclusion.

In anticipation of a response from the FSF, what exactly would the Apache Foundation like
to have clarified? Is there a list of questions and realistic situations that you would like
the FSF to consider and reply to?


> 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