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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> > > > -- > Bryan > <>< >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
