[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Apache License & LGPL Compatible

The issue is not so much whether the license is compatible with the 
Apache Software License, but whether we can link ASL Licensed code to
a LGPL library.  The key question here is whether the MS Excel Filter 
plugin is a "work that uses the Library" or a "work based on the Library".

I would argue that it is a "work that uses the Library".  From section 5
of the LGPL:

  A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but 
  is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, 
  is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is 
  not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the 
  scope of this License.

Here is basically how the code will look:

|   QT Libraries     |
|   QPL License      |
|   KDElibs/KSpread  |
|   LPGL License     |
|   libkspreadexport |
|   (LPGL???)*       |
  Loadable Module, plugin API
|   MS Excel Filter  |
|    BSD License**   |
| Apache POI Library |
|   ASL License      |


* The author, Fred Malabre, has not released this code yet, and the
license is to be determined (we are hoping that it will be under the LGPL

** The author, myself (TJ Mather), can pick any license for the filter
plugin.  I picked BSD License here because it seems it would be the most 
compatible with LGPL and ASL.

On 29 Nov 2002, ninewands wrote:

> If I understand your project correctly, I do not see that you need a
> license that is compatible with Apache's "Artistic License" unless you
> intend to contribute your filter and plugin(s) to the Apache Foundation
> to be included and distributed with Apache.  If all you are doing is
> linking to their code by means of their published APIs you can apply any
> license you wish, even a closed-source, proprietary EULA, to your own
> work.
> If you want to contribute the Apache Module to that project, then it
> must be licensed on terms compatible with the Apache license.  If you
> wish to contribute your KWord plugin to the KOffice project, then it is
> my understanding that it must be licensed on terms compatible with both
> the QPL and the GPL.  If you distribute it independently of either
> project and only link to their published, and publically callable,
> interfaces at runtime you don't have to be compatible with any of their
> licenses.
> If you are really paranoid about getting the licensing "right" with
> respect to the thread you linked to in the KOffice-devel mailing list
> then I would probably recommend that you license your Apache module
> under the BSD license and your KWrite plugin under the whatever license
> the KOffice group wants you to use.  Since we are talking about a
> library, probably the LGPL.

Reply to: