On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 11:51 AM John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Link regarding using LGPL with Apache licensed software, (from, > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x) > > ` > WHICH LICENSES MAY NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN APACHE PRODUCTS?ΒΆ > > GNU LGPL > The LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it places on larger > works, violating the third license criterion. > ` > > Because we have a specific warning on the apache license site > it seems best to get libbpf dual licensed. We would happily > start using it in cilium[1] for example after the dual license was > in place.
Here is good summary of why using lgpl in apache product is not a great option: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-192?focusedCommentId=13907462&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-13907462 "These are not LEGAL restrictions. They are POLICY restrictions. They impact the downstream, not the ASF." My understanding that cilium and bcc legally can use existing libbpf, but they would have to provide non standard redistribution policy (apache2 plus lgpl 2.1 wording) which I suspect is not something cilium or bcc projects would want to do. So the best way forward is to dual license libbpf as lpgl 2.1 and apache2 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1475): https://lists.iovisor.org/g/iovisor-dev/message/1475 Mute This Topic: https://lists.iovisor.org/mt/25185388/21656 Group Owner: iovisor-dev+ow...@lists.iovisor.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.iovisor.org/g/iovisor-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
