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.chr...@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 <br...@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.chr...@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@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.chr...@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@lists.opensource.org >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> License-discuss mailing list >>>> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>>> >>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bryan >>> <>< >>> >> > > -- > Bryan > <>< >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
