www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joshua Gay (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:04:19 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13909081#comment-13909081

Joshua Gay commented on LEGAL-192:

> Second, I ask you to rationalize your reliance on the vague terms "merge" and "form a

> single combined program" 

Well, Larry, I think you caught me being a bit lazy and careless with my wording. Which, I
admit, is not a very helpful or constructive thing to do when talking about licensing :-)
Sorry about that. 

I'm not actually sure there are any questions for the FSF in this thread. I think I jumped
into it rather poorly.

It seems like Roy made it pretty clear that it's policy that all contributions to Apache projects
be licensed under Apache 2.0. 

When it comes to contributing to an existing project, the FSF makes the following recommendation:
"When you contribute to an existing project, you should usually release your modified versions
under the same license as the original work. It's good to cooperate with the project's maintainers,
and using a different license for your modifications often makes that cooperation very difficult.
You should only do that when there is a strong reason to justify it."

If I understand Sam's situation correctly, what he has is a very small project he developed
that he licensed under the LGPL. If it really is a very small project, and he wants our recommendation,
then we would say license it under Apache 2.0 -- but you can see our guide to choosing a license
for a project for details: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html 

Please let me know if there are actually any questions people would like the FSF to try to
answer on this matter. I'll do my best to provide clear, thoughtful, and pleasant answers
from here on out :-)



> 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
>   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

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message