[License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Thu Apr 25 19:25:31 UTC 2019

Yes to both. For the same reasons you could link both to proprietary
software. Neither license applies terms to works they are combined with,
except for lgpl requiring that it is possible to upgrade or modify the lgpl
software and for the combination to be capable of being relinked. Was there
any particular reason that you thought this might not be possible?



On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 11:04 Bryan Christ <bryan.christ at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am the author of a library that is licensed under the LGPL 2.1.  It's
> very clear that a closed source work can dynamically link to the library.
> That's easy to understand.  There are 2 other scenarios however that I am
> unclear about:
> 1.  Can a LGPL 2.1 dynamically link to an APL 2.0 library or binary?
> 2.  Can an APL 2.0 binary dynamically link to a LGPL 2.1 library?
> I did a lot of searching on the web first and couldn't find anything
> covering this.
> Thanks in advance to whoever replies.
> --
> Bryan
> <><
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190425/32dc9f0a/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list