www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:23:19 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13909446#comment-13909446
] 

Lawrence Rosen commented on LEGAL-192:
--------------------------------------

I just sent the following email to the European Legal Network. I will forward any relevant
responses to this Apache list. 

***************

Dear worldwide colleagues,

I said something in a thread at Apache that I now realize I can't prove. So I want to ask
you for evidence to the contrary.

We have been discussing whether Apache projects should be allowed to distribute software that
includes LGPL components. As an author, Apache is of course free to do anything it wants,
but our members are concerned that we shouldn't do anything that violates the expectations
of our customers and users. Our license is the Apache License, not the LGPL. That is how many
of our members read our Third Party License Policy [1], and they want our projects to refuse
LGPL contributions.

At heart this is a policy rather than a legal issue. Nobody at Apache is interested in a legal
opinion about whether this is acceptable, and my personal opinion about the underlying policy
is just one of many.

But I suggested, as a factual matter, that *all* commercial software of note nowadays includes
*both* Apache components *and* LGPL components. Treating these licenses as parts of separate
and incompatible FOSS ecosystems is no longer appropriate in the commercial software world.

In other words, whether or not Apache policy allows the combination of Apache and LGPL works,
commercial software does it all the time!

Am I right or wrong?

/Larry

[1] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html 


> 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