Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Reply to message

* = Required fields
* Subject
* Body
Send reply to
Author (directly in email)
Please type the letters in the image above.

Original message

Author =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz@bitxtender.com>
Full name =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz@bitxtender.com>
Date 2008-04-11 04:58:49 PDT
Message Am 07.04.2008 um 14:54 schrieb Hans Lellelid:
> Hi Lex -
> Alexander Kahl wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 06:38 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:
>>> Oh ... yes, of course. I didn't realize that v3 was compatible w/
>>> Apache 2. I didn't see it on the page listing acceptable
>>> licenses. Do you have a link for that?
>> While I have no source explicitly listing LGPLv3 as compatible to
>> Apache-2, compatibility can be logically concluded by looking at the
>> additions of the LGPLv3 to the GPLv3 [1] and realizing there are no
>> changes to the "patent termination and indemnification
>> provisions" [2]
>> that cause the GPLv2 incompatibility but are present in the GPLv3.
>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/l​icenses/lgpl.html
>> [2] http://www.apache.or​g/licenses/GPL-compa​tibility.html
>>> If that's the case, then this is easy. We'll just update to v3,
>>> make that explicit in the headers and move along... :)
>> I really hope the LGPLv3 suffices to ensure this! :)
> Yes, after reading some more docs & discussion, it does indeed look
> like these should be compatible.
> Assuming that there's no objection (I don't expect any), we will
> switch to using the LGPLv3.

Fine with me. Can we do that? Did we state an LGPL version before? If
yes, I assume we'd actually need written permission of each
contributor to relicense his contribution. Meh.