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] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:57:30 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13907739#comment-13907739
] 

Luigi Bai commented on LEGAL-192:
---------------------------------

I hope the following illustration is helpful, not confusing (or worse, incorrect).

PersonA receives a work licensed to them under the terms of an Apache license. PersonA makes
modifications to that work so it combines with a work licensed to them under the terms of
a version of the LGPL. The versions of the licenses make a difference, but not much, I think,
for this particular purpose.

For simplicity, let's say the changes to the Apache-licensed work are /de minimis/ or themselves
licensed to others under the same license, so what we end up with are two works, one licensed
under the Apache license and one under the LGPL. 

PersonA combines the two. Per the Apache license, PersonA may distribute the combination under
any license terms of their choosing. Per the LGPL, PersonA may distribute or convey the combination
under any terms of their choosing /as long as the terms allow re-linking and reverse engineering/
(paraphrased). The Apache license allows re-linking and reverse engineering, so PersonA distributes
the combined work under what looks like the Apache license.

Except it's not. The combined work is really distributed under what might be described as
Apache-prime, or maybe L-Apache. Because when PersonB receives the combined work, PersonB
may not re-distribute it (or any derivative that combines with the LGPL work) under *any*
terms of their choosing, as the Apache license allows. Instead, they must adhere to the relevant
terms of the LGPL which is part of the combined work. In other words, PersonB doesn't really
get the combination with the complete freedom to choose terms that the text of the Apache
license purports to allow. They must also comply with the terms of the LGPL.

Does that help or make things worse? If the latter, my apologies. 

> 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