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] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:41:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13907712#comment-13907712
] 

Sam Halliday commented on LEGAL-192:
------------------------------------

Ok, so your primary objection with the LGPL is that it does not permit sub licensing? Is there
anything else that Apache would like the FSF to respond to?

v3 has very different wording, and in fact only references sub licensing in section 2 of the
GPL, noting that section 10 grants an automatic license (and hence there is no need to sublicense).

I do not see why Apache or it's users require the ability to create a sublicense when the
LGPL already grants a license to any user or recipient of that software.

Is there an example of such a sub license, and why can't the sublicense simply be an aggregation
of the licenses of all the components? Surely the FSF only mean to stop sub licensing that
may restrict the rights of the developers of the library.

> 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