« Happy birthday Matt! | Main | Roller annoyances. »

Andy is right after all, LGPL is not viral?

Comments[7] by Dave in Java

Slashdot picked up Andy's LGPL is viral for Java story and provoked a response from the Free Software Foundation (FSF):

FSF Executive Director, Brad Kuhn LGPL's S. 6 allows you to make new works that link with the LGPL'ed code, and license them any way you see fit. Only the LGPL'ed code itself must remain Free. Such 'client code' can even be proprietary; it need not be LGPL'ed.

I'm so confused. Is that the final word? He didn't mention Java specifically. He is not a lawyer. I don't think this is going to be the final word for Apache. I'm starting to think that FSF wants this to be a confusing issue.



Like this post?  del.icio.us Bookmark it   |   submit to dig digg.com Digg it   |   slashdot Slashdot it   |   technorati See who links to it

Comments:

The key to this puzzle is to unambiguously define the term 'link' as it applies to Java.

Posted by Sam Ruby on July 18, 2003 at 09:15 AM EDT #

Let's start with the assumption that any LGPL'd code that has anything to do with your project does in fact mean your project has to follow the licensing terms of the LGPL. It doesn't matter. The LGPL does _not_ then require you to license your own project under the LGPL. For the love of pete, please actually read section 6 yourself. It never says your work has to be licensed LGPL. In fact, as I read it, it seems to me that a work that uses your work that uses a LGPL library has no required licensing restrictions at all. What is considered linking with java is irrelevant - the LGPL is not viral (It doesn't force anything that uses your code to use its license).

Posted by Paul Rivers on July 18, 2003 at 01:56 PM EDT #

PS Please read http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71522&cid=6466666

Posted by Paul Rivers on July 18, 2003 at 02:01 PM EDT #

Paul, I've read the license several times already and many other Java developers have as well. It is not clear. As Sam said, the word 'link' needs to be defined in regards to Java. The clarification from Dave Turner is good enough for me, for now, and I don't think Roller needs to drop any LGPL components, but I would much rather see the LGPL license itself reworded to take into account languages like Java.

Posted by Dave Johnson on July 18, 2003 at 03:49 PM EDT #

The best comment to look at is http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71522&cid=6466958 Where Dave Turner list the 3 things that you must do when using an LGPL'd jar in another program. which are: " 1. Make sure your licensing follows the simple requirements in the 1st para of section 6. 2. Provide the LGPL library in a separate jar, and allow that jar to be replaced by newer versions of the library. This is only one of the possible ways to comply, but it's certainly the easiest. 3. Make available the source code for the LGPL library. " Where item number 1 is just talking about making sure to post notice that your software using the LGPL library. Nothing in any of that places requirements upon your use of a certain license.

Posted by Shane Word on July 18, 2003 at 06:52 PM EDT #

So why can't they say that in plain english in the license? Because the uncertainly will drive a proportion of LGPL licensees to GPL instead?

Posted by Lance on July 18, 2003 at 09:21 PM EDT #

My point was that, even assuming that link means "any mention of the lgpl library code whatsoever" you're still ok with the roller license. The LGPL does would not force you to license roller LGPL, and the few restrictions it does have are already covered by the roller license. Thus I would say that, for roller or any open source project, what "link" means is irrelevant - the LGPL being applied to your project doesn't hurt it.

Posted by Paul Rivers on July 19, 2003 at 04:39 PM EDT #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: Allowed

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Copyright 2002-2007, David M Johnson (dave.johnson at rollerweblogger.org)

This is a personal weblog, I do not speak for my employer.