On Jan 8, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:31:09AM -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Sam Weinig wrote:
I just noticed several patches have put up for review that contain
new
files using the Apache license. Current WebKit policy is that code
should be licensed under either a BSD license or GNU Lesser General
Public License v.2.1 (mentioned explicitly when submitting patches
on
bugs.webkit.org). In order to change this policy, we would need to
have a larger discussion as this is not a decision that can be
made by
any one person. If you have submitted a patch recently that is
under
another license, please consider re-submitting it with either of the
two allowed licenses as we cannot land them as they are. I am
sorry we
did not notice this sooner.
In addition, according to the FSF the Apache License 2.0 is not
compatible with the GPL 2.0, and therefore likely also not compatible
with the LGPL 2.1. It is possible the FSF is wrong in this opinion,
but I
would say it is a pretty good reason for the WebKit project to avoid
Apache-licensed code.
Incompatibility with GPL has no implication with (in)compatibility
with
the LGPL. You can even link proprietary code with LGPL without
compatibility issues (though there are some rules to respect).
When WebKit is distributed in binary form it is not normally in the
form of individually relinkable object files, but rather as a single
shared library. So it would be a problem for WebKit distributors to
include source files in WebKit that do not have an LGPL-compatible
license when linked statically into a single binary. I do not believe
it is the case that code with any license whatsoever can be statically
linked to LGPL code.
In fact, the Apache License is compatible with the LGPL.
The reasons the FSF gives for incompatibility with the GPL seem prima
facie like they would apply to the LGPL as well, although I am by no
means an expert on the legal issues <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
>:
"Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2,
because it has some requirements that are not in the older version.
These include certain patent termination and indemnification
provisions."
The LGPL v2.1, much like the GPL v2, forbids adding additional
restrictions.
But multiplying the number of licenses is not a good idea IMHO.
I'll take advantage of this thread to reiterate my request: please
don't
license new code under *either* BSD or LGPL (the actual policy is
*either* 2-clause BSD, or 3-clause BSD, or LGPL). Please license new
code
under BSD *and* LGPL.
Why would that be beneficial? Note that the current project policy is
to use one license or the other per source file, though of course
source files can end up with both licenses due to refactoring or the
desire of some authors to relicense.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
