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

[Bryan Christ]

Ah.  Okay.  Makes sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:25 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> 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
>> <><
>>
>

-- 
Bryan
<><
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190425/08fe7b52/attachment.html>