www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Luigi Bai (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:59:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13907578#comment-13907578
] 

Luigi Bai edited comment on LEGAL-192 at 2/20/14 9:57 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------

I commented on and linked to LGPLv3. I missed that the OP linked to v2.1. The sections are
numbered differently between the two; nevertheless, I think we're talking about the same things.

And I think Roy is right - what seems to be at issue is a policy determination about the distribution
of a combined work involving an Apache-licensed work and an LGPL-licensed work. The combination
would have to be licensed under terms that were compatible with the LGPL (see the relevant
sections); if I understand Roy correctly, that's not what downstream recipients of Apache-licensed
works want.


was (Author: lbai):
I commented on and linked to LGPLv3. I missed that the OP linked to v2.1. The sections are
numbered differently between the two; nevertheless, I think we're talking about the same things.

> 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