Ah. Okay. Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:25 PM Bruce Perens <br...@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.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 >> <>< >> > -- Bryan <><
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
