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