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

[Bryan Christ]

Sorry for being dense here, but can you explain this a bit more?


> 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
> modifications.*


On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:42 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> 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
> modifications.*
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:29 PM Bryan Christ <bryan.christ at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <><
>>
>

-- 
Bryan
<><
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190425/02c54847/attachment-0001.html>