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

[Bruce Perens]

Well, obviously the Apache license permits these things, so no concern
regarding your question.

A proprietary license that entirely prohibited modification to the extent
of preventing re-linking with a modified LGPL library, or that prevented
the reverse-engineering necessary to debug that modification, would not be
compatible with LGPL 2.1 .

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Bryan Christ <bryan.christ at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/ea373a68/attachment.html>