On 4 January 2012 14:17, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Yes, as a general statement I agree with Simon. However, the devil is always in the detail. Hence my warning about asking generic legal questions. The reply above (and those of Rob and myself) makes certain assumptions about the conditions in which the question can apply. It is noticeable that the three of us have made different assumptions about the specifics and thus have provide slightly different answers, each based on the same generic position. Specific questions are needed. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
