www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Using an LGPL dependency in Apache-licensed software
Date Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:11:31 GMT
Be aware that if you import the LGPL part into your source repository, that
may mean that effectively distribution of any compiled binaries also needs
to be LGPL "upgraded", as it's license requires that the LGPL part can be
user-replaced. (dvd player scenario)

In a traditional desktop/server Java project this is simple to achieve by
having the LGPL part as a separate and clearly named JAR, referenced from
your LICENCE.

If your application is source-only like with Python or JavaScript there
should not be much to worry about, but if you are compiling a C-program or
make other kind of binary bundles you (or your downstream) need to be more
careful.

Using the Apache license for your own contribution is still more permissive
than going full LGPL, as it allows third-parties to remove the
LGPL-component and use (parts of) your code under the Apache license. Your
code can also then be "upgraded" to GPL3 if needed.

On 21 Sep 2017 4:33 pm, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Yes, you are free to use the Apache license for your software and have a
> dependency that is LGPL licensed. The restrictions about not using LGPL’d
> software as a required dependency at the ASF is a policy decision as it
> means that anyone using the Apache licensed software has to comply with the
> LGPL requirements, which are more restrictive than the Apache license and
> user’s might be surprised or confused by that.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Sep 21, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Chris Dembia <cld72@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for the helpful licensing Q&As you have made available on
> apache.org. There’s a point on which I could use additional guidance, if
> anyone on this list would be willing to help me.
> >
> > I would like to use the Apache 2.0 license for a project of mine (this
> project has nothing to do with the Apache Software Foundation other than my
> desire to use the Apache 2.0 license). I’ve copied source code for a
> dependency into my project (into my git repository), and this dependency is
> LGPL-licensed. My question is: am I able to license my code under the
> Apache 2.0 license in this scenario?
> >
> > This website (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x)
> says that an LGPL-licensed work cannot be included in an Apache
> 2.0-licensed work. Is this the case only for projects within the Apache
> Software Foundation? I understand that using copyleft components in Apache
> 2.0-licensed software somewhat defeats the purpose of using a permissive
> license for my project, but I would like to use this LGPL-licensed
> dependency, and of the existing permissive licenses, I would like to use
> the Apache license. Are the LGPL and Apache licenses incompatible in the
> direction where LGPL-licensed work is used within Apache-licensed work? Of
> course, I would need to comply with the terms of the LGPL license for the
> dependency (by allowing relinking, etc.).
> >
> > Thank you for any help you can provide.
> > Chris
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message