[jira] [Closed] (LEGAL-192) Why is LGPL not allowed

["Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Henri Yandell closed LEGAL-192.
-------------------------------
    Resolution: Won't Fix

Closing this as the discussion has petered out.

As I understand it, various reasons were implied for why not LGPL (be it 2.1 or 3.0), with the requirement for reverse engineering listed as the primary one. Richard Fontana's final correspondence suggested room for investigation in the LGPL 3.0 text.

Apache's policy position is that LGPL 2.1 or 3.0 (or I assume 2.0) can be depended on if that feature is optional and the LGPL code is downloaded from the source. I believe there are a few (possible) reasons for that:

1) Downloading the LGPL code makes it very clear to the user that a more encompassing license is in use (struggling for a word to explain LGPL > Apache :) ).
2) Downloading from the source ensures Apache aren't changing the code - generally the ASF has set its mission to implement code under Apache licenses (and this group would like to hear before a project forks an LGPL project). 
3) Requiring the usage be optional stops users getting an Apache product and realizing that they have to accept a more encompassing license than they expected to. 

> 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
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org