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 23:05:19 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13907670#comment-13907670
] 

Roy T. Fielding commented on LEGAL-192:
---------------------------------------

I said *sublicensed*, not *relicensing*.

As pointed out in

http://markmail.org/message/54whbdsfhlznh6bk

the LGPLv2.1 section 6 requirement of

  "provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and
reverse engineering for debugging such modifications"

and the section 8 requirement of

  "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the Library except as expressly
provided under this License.  Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with,
or distribute the Library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
License."

are incompatible with the notion of compiling the Apache product and distributing that compiled
product to end users under the Apache License or a sublicense thereof.  The reason being that
the Apache License does allow recipients to redistribute the covered code under a license
that forbids modification of the combined work (where the combined work might include other
software owned by the party redistributing the Apache work). This is the core difference in
philosophy between the ASF and FSF, is well understood by both parties, and is unlikely to
change in the foreseeable future.

It seems you understand the distinction, but don't consider it an additional restriction.
You are assuming that Apache products are always distributed as open source.  It is true that
the ASF distributes them as open source. What others do after that is not our concern, unlike
the (L)GPL, and we have to ensure that our licensing terms do not cause that to be a concern.

> 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