www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marvin Humphrey (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Sat, 22 Feb 2014 14:05:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13909384#comment-13909384
] 

Marvin Humphrey commented on LEGAL-192:
---------------------------------------

bq. Presumably the ACL consider the ambiguous "its license" to mean "the combined work's license"
and not, as I interpret, "the component's license"

We mean "the component's license".

Apache products may have mandatory dependencies on EPL or MPL components.
Both of those licenses, like LGPL, have reciprocity provisions which apply
only to the component itself.  

The difference between those licenses and the LGPL is, as Luigi Bai was the
first to point out clearly upthread, the LGPL places additional constraints on
the combined work.  These constraints, including the "reverse engineering"
provision, were originally designed for Unix/C style libraries distributed
separately from the main application, as Roy noted.  They ensure that the user
has the ability to modify the application by swapping in a *different* library
which implements the same functionality (and to debug the resulting
combination until everything works).

It is these additional constraints which are at issue, not reciprocity
provisions which stop at the edge of the component.  They are what prevents
combined works which use LGPL components from being issued under "any
license", despite persistent rumors to the contrary.


> 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