Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 23:11:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Lawrence Rosen (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12696077.1392843762729.88121.1393110679779@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=13909577#comment-13909577 ] 

Lawrence Rosen commented on LEGAL-192:
--------------------------------------

I was reminded a few minutes ago that Apache Open Office distributes GPL/LGPL dictionaries "as encapsulated entities in our convenience binaries". There is no reference to "convenience binaries" or "encapsulated entities" in our Third Party License Policy, so whatever that Apache PMC is doing is already outside the scope of our policy (albeit approved in advance so no shame). 

This helps prove my earlier point about the common nature of such LGPL/Apache combinations in real life. 

/Larry

> 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