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 22:52:19 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13909572#comment-13909572

Marvin Humphrey commented on LEGAL-192:

> You seem to be saying that the requirement that downstream users must
> receive source code of LGPLd components is not an issue. Am I reading this
> correctly?

I think the most accurate answer I can give is that the reciprocal provisions
of the MPL and the EPL have not prevented those licenses from being added to
what we call "Category B", approved "weak copyleft" licenses.


The LGPL's reciprocal provisions are not identical to those of the MPL or EPL
and have historically drawn objections (see Roy's links from upthread).  I
glossed over this earlier because I wanted to emphasize that Apache is
conceptually OK with mandatory dependencies with reciprocal licensing limited
to the component -- which seems to be what you want.  However, the details
matter and LGPL has been thoroughly discussed and not approved.

> Are you saying that the ASF should (conceptually) be able to include LGPL
> components if they did not require that the Combined Works must be capable
> of reverse engineering for debugging modifications.  (i.e. in Java, firing
> up a debugging session in an IDE and consulting the API)? The remaining
> requirements in section 4 of the LGPL are somewhat trivial, but do any of
> them also give you concern?

I encourage you to consult the links that Roy assembled pointing at prior
analysis of the LGPL.

Marvin Humphrey

> 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