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 hlellelid
Full name Hans Lellelid
Date 2008-04-11 05:07:31 PDT
Message David Z├╝lke wrote:
> 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.

I'm not entirely sure... We didn't state a version before (the headers
just say LGPL); however, we did include version 2.1 (since that was
originally the most recent version) in the distros.

I'm gong to chat about this with a lawyer next week and will communicate
whatever I learn there.