www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard Fontana (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
Date Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:17:19 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13910331#comment-13910331

Richard Fontana commented on LEGAL-192:

On the issue of reverse engineering, there are a couple of subtle differences between LGPLv2.x
and LGPLv3. One is that the LGPLv3 clause was worded with the understanding that nonenforced
anti-reverse-engineering clauses in proprietary licenses should not give rise to any issue.
This reflected the fact  that stock proprietary licenses with formulaic anti-reverse-engineering
clauses, covering software linking against LGPLv2.x libraries, were widespread and such clauses
were typically never enforced.

The other is that the LGPLv3 version speaks of "reverse engineering for debugging ... modifications"
"of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work". In the earlier versions of
the LGPL the relevant clause says "provided that the terms permit modification of the work
for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." where
it is possible to read "the work" as meaning the combined work. 

> 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