[License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0 Compatibility
bruce at perens.com
Thu Apr 25 19:42:19 UTC 2019
It's definitely relevant between APL and *GPL*, because GPL places
requirements that the terms of the *entire* work do not include
restrictions beyond those in the GPL. LGPL doesn't say that.
And I didn't completely state all of the requirements of LGPL 2.1 on the
non-LGPL piece: *the terms *[must]* permit modification of the work for the
customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:29 PM Bryan Christ <bryan.christ at gmail.com>
> 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?
>> 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.
>>> License-discuss mailing list
>>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss