Question on using apache and lgpl license

[David Woolley]

Neo Anderson wrote:
> I am developing an application licensed with lgpl 3.0. Now I am

+ It looks like using apache license in application licensed with lgpl 3.0
+ is ok. However, I discover that in apache they explains that
> 
> 2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
+ stating that You changed the files; and

If the licences are compatible, and the overall product is LGPL, obeying 
the LGPL should be sufficient.  In this case, including an appropriate 
copyright notices, as required by the LGPL, would, I suspect, be 
sufficient, i.e. add yourself to the list of copyright owners for the 
file.  (Note some people in Europe say you need to provide enough 
information to identify your country of domicile.)

Best practice would require you to indicate which bits you actually 
owned, so that, in the case of a dispute, they can be seperated out.

> I understand this is minor problem, but I am not familiar with law

Please note that I am not a lawyer and even the lawyers here will not 
give you a legally binding opinion based on a mailing list posting.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.