GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review (WAS: License Committee Report for July 2007)

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi all,

Just changing the title so we can accurately track the discussion.   
As far as I'm concerned, the (L)GPLv3 has been properly submitted, so  
it would be wonderful for the community to provide its collective  
wisdom as to whether it meets the OSD (rather than getting stuck in  
meta-discussions).

-- Ernie P.
(speaking for myself, not the OSI Board, but I don't think they'd  
object :-)

On Jul 31, 2007, at 2:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>> Chris, as you know, the actual compatibility matrix for LGPL is
>> really much more complicated.  LPGLv3 is compatible with GPLv3,
>> with LGPLv2-or-later and GPLv2-or-later, BSD, and can even be linked
>> to proprietary code, but it is not compatible with LGPLv2-only or
>> GPLv2-only (unless it's GPLv2 with the runtime or classpath  
>> exceptions).
>>
>> This is (IMO) a really hokey situation, where LGPLv3 is compatible
>> with non-free SW but not with free SW under GPLv2/LGPLv2.
>
> It's not as bad as you think.  There are two kinds of derivative works
> made from LGPLed code: in LGPLv2-speak, they are "works based on the
> library" and "works that use the library".  The corresponding  
> LGPLv3 terms
> are "works based on the Program" and "Combined Works", respectively.
>
> The compatibility matrix you speak of refers only to the first  
> kind:  you
> cannot add a LGPLv3-only module to an LGPLv2-only library.   
> However, you
> are entirely free to make use of an LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 or LGPLv2-or- 
> later
> library from any kind of program, whether under an FSF license,  
> another
> FLOSS license, or a proprietary license, provided you obey the basic
> constraints (allowing the user to replace the library with new  
> versions,
> basically).