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

[Bryan Christ]

I'm good with that.  I kept running into that scenario.  Discussions about
GPL but not LGPL.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:34 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:

> Here’s what FSF says about incompatibility:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
>
> It discusses GPLv3 (compatible) & GPLv2 (incompatible) but not LGPL.
>
> FWIW John Sullivan is looking to update the FSF FAQ and this is issue he
> might want to write a new FAQ on.  Do you mind if I share this thread with
> him?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* License-discuss [mailto:
> license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Perens
> via License-discuss
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 25, 2019 1:25 PM
> *To:* Bryan Christ <bryan.christ at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>;
> license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Question about LGPL 2.1 and APL 2.0
> Compatibility
>
>
>
> 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/20190425/2fe52e57/attachment-0001.html>