Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 03:23:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Joshua Gay (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12696077.1392843762729.78819.1392952999476@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12696077.1392843762729@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12696077.1392843762729@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13907913#comment-13907913 ] 

Joshua Gay commented on LEGAL-192:
----------------------------------

I am here to try to help provide an opinion from the FSF, if I can. 

I assume Sam licensed LGPLv2.1 or any later version, so I'll choose a later version. So, I'll choose a later version and go with LGPLv3. So, form here on out, that is what I'll assume we are discussing. 

In general, we can say that GPLv3, LGPLv3, and AGPLv3 are each compatible with Apache 2.0. But, I don't think that is what is under discussion here. 

I think what we are looking at is a policy decision and whether or not LGPLv3 is compatible with a policy.  As far as I can understand, one of the policy goals is to allow third-parties to redistribute works under nonfree (proprietary) terms. If that is incorrect, then Roy or Larry, please correct me and accept my apology for misunderstanding. 

So, given my policy assumption, if you merge the codebase of an LGPLv3 licensed program with an Apache 2.0 licensed program to form a single combined program, and then redistribute this combination, third parties would not be able to redistribute (modified) versions of the program under proprietary licensing terms, and therefore this violates our policy assumption. 

QED?

> 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