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] [Comment Edited] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:19:23 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13909942#comment-13909942
] 

Ralph Goers edited comment on LEGAL-192 at 2/24/14 12:19 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

What we encourage is ANY use of Apache software, which includes the use case Marvin points
out. 

The problem here Larry is that if they try to use the Apache licensed component but decide
they don't want the LGPL'd component, in the case being presented the Apache component would
then become useless.  That is the reason it is OK to use LGPL'd components for optional features,
but not as a core dependency.

I feel like this issue is at the point of beating a dead horse. This question has been discussed
for years and the current policy is clearly documented.  I fully expect this issue to be marked
as resolved with no change in current policy.


was (Author: ralph.goers@dslextreme.com):
What we encourage is ANY use of Apache software, which includes the use case Marvin points
out. 

The problem here Larry is that if they try to use the Apache licensed component but decide
they don't want the LGPL'd component, in the case being presented the Apache component would
then become useless.  That is the reason it is OK to use LGPL'd components for optional features,
but not as a core dependency.

> 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