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 Sat, 22 Feb 2014 03:16:19 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13909191#comment-13909191
] 

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

bq. I have already given permission for the smaller of these projects (JNILoader) to be licensed
under an Apache License, but I have grave concerns regarding the licensing of the larger of
my works given the confusion that I am hearing, regarding the goals of the ASF.

One goal of the ASF is to maximize reuse of the software we create. We do that by eliminating
all barriers to its reuse. One such barrier would be a requirement on reciprocal publication
of other people's work that is merely based on our work.

bq. As a researcher and a developer, with a moral concern for the freedom of my work, I choose
the LGPL because it assures me that any changes to my code will be released as LGPL and I
will have access to the source code of those changes. I do not care about changes to the Application.

Actually, no, it only assures you that recipients of the modified work will also receive those
modifications in source form. There is no obligation for such modifications to be delivered
to you.

Please understand that compelling other people to publish their own work under LGPL just because
they based it on your work is neither moral nor immoral; it is merely a choice you made as
the copyright owner. The Apache Software Foundation only accepts voluntary contributions.
As a result, we do not allow such requirements on reciprocity (a requirement that compels
contributions) to be applied to our work, even when our work is combined with someone else's
under LGPL.

bq. In contributing to an Apache project (via the vehicle of a third party component) I understand
that my work may be bundled as part of a larger Combined Work than may have non-free(dom)
components. I am ok with that.

I think there is some confusion. You are not contributing to an Apache project when one of
its products chooses to use your library under your own license. We do not change the license
(we cannot -- only the copyright owner can do that). We do not distribute any code without
the permission of the copyright owner, either directly or via the permissions of their chosen
license. We carefully vet such licenses to ensure that downstream recipients are not surprised
by their terms. Hence, the policy about LGPL.

If you choose to use a different license, then more projects will be able to redistribute
the code (and not just here at the ASF). Whether you want that or not is a decision for you
to make, not the ASF. This is not a choice about freedom vs non-freedom of your work: your
code doesn't disappear just because it is being used somewhere else. It is a choice about
what you compel others to do with their own work.

> 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