www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:23:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13909544#comment-13909544

Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-192:

There are several reasons people choose to use a particular software license.  If you want
anyone who modifies your work to be required to make those modifications available to everyone
you would choose the LGPL. If you want to make your software available for anyone to do whatever
they want with it then you might choose a license like the Apache license.

There is no "good" or "bad" here. Some developers like the requirement that modifications
always be publicly available.  The ASF, however, has concluded that those additional "restrictions"
on the users of its software are incompatible with what it is trying to do by licensing all
the software we created under the Apache license.  The main goal at the ASF is that users
of Apache software know that when they use our software they do not have to worry about other
licensing issues such as making third party libraries available and providing sufficient information
to allow that software library to be debugged.  That does not mean that ASF projects don't
provide source code, javadoc, etc. that is useful for debugging, but we have no requirement
that a user of our software include that in their Application deliverable. In fact, the whole
point is that we try to not limit what users of Apache software can or cannot do.

> 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