On 4 Jan 2012, at 12:59, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 1/4/12 1:08 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> My personal opinions on this, naturally: >> >> On 4 Jan 2012, at 11:35, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >> >>> In detail if a derivative project merge our now Apache licensed code with >>> their code that was based on the former Oracle licensed LGPL code. This >>> code becomes automatically Apache licensed, correct? >> >> Probably not, no. The existing LGPLv3 licensed code remains LGPLv3 licensed, >> and as a requirement of the LGPLv3 the new code added to it has to be made >> available under the LGPLv3 as well. As a consequence, the resulting modified >> work will be licensed under LGPLv3. The Apache code that was added remains >> under the Apache license too (which is OK since there is no conflict between >> the terms of the AL and LGPLv3). >> > are you sure?
Pretty sure, yes. Rob and Ross appear to agree. > For me this special situation seems to be a little bit different. Either you > go forward with the old code and the old license header and can't merge to > the new code. Or you move forward with the new one and keep the new license > headers and put your change on a different license. Where you would make the > difference which code is from which code base. For me it sounds practical > impossible because the many thousand files with more or less the same code. > > > It is really a special situation, isn't it. It would be interesting to hear > what a lawyer things about it. > > Juergen > > >>> If yes, does it mean that we can use the changes on this code in our code >>> as well if it is publicly available? >> >> No. >> >> >> S. >
