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

[Bryan Christ]

I came across a discussion about a patent clause contention between APL 2.0
and LGPL 2.1 and wasn't sure how/if that was relevant.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:26 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Bryan
<><
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190425/9db466f9/attachment.html>