Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
you can take apache2 licensed code and put in in GPL3/LGPL3 programs, but you can not take GPL/LGPL code and put it in apache2 programs.
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation
Posted Jun 6, 2011 19:17 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
Posted Jun 6, 2011 19:20 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
but taking code out of a LGPL library and putting it in an apache2 library is not allowed by the LGPL (anything released under the LGPL3 can be under the LGPL3 or GPL3, no other licenses)
so if OOo wants to stop shipping some functions itself and instead use the FO code as a library, that would be allowed.
but if OOo wants to copy fixes that went into FO and put them in their own library, that isn't allowed.
Posted Jun 7, 2011 1:02 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433)
ONLY EX_ORACLE CODE is licenced LGPL3, which Apache will have under ASL2 courtesy of Oracle.
*A*L*L* the LO code (that is, code contributed to LO) is licenced MPL(2) which is ASL2 compatible.
In other words, if Apache want to take LO code then either (a) it is of Oracle origin, in which case Apache can use it under the ASL, or (b) it is of LO origin, in which case Apache can use it under the MPL.
Read the LO licencing guidelines - all code contributed must be LGPL3+/MPL+.
Posted Jun 7, 2011 1:47 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
LO already contains a lot of code that is not Oracle's to relicense
Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:27 UTC (Tue) by kragil (subscriber, #34373)
If ASF wants to integrate LGPL or MPL code into their ASL code it would become LGPL or LGPL. That won't work if they intend to stay ASL.
No cookie for you.
Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:30 UTC (Tue) by kragil (subscriber, #34373)
Posted Jun 7, 2011 17:27 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433)
First of all, FORGET THE (L)GPL. ALL CODE IS DUAL-LICENCED.
So if it comes from Oracle/OO it's ASL. If it comes from LO, it's MPL. (The (L)GPL is irrelevant, because if the code is dual-licenced, you can use the other licence instead.)
So, because Apache distribute as source, and the MPL merely requires that any MPL source files (and any modified MPL source files) accompany the executable - at least as I am led to to understood the MPL - then there is no problem mixing ASL and MPL code so long as the MPL source accompanies the binary.
Given that, you don't even need to relicence!
That was my point about "Apache CAN but WON'T". They CAN take LO code if they so desire. But if they insist on relicencing, then they WON'T take the code.
Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:33 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
It depends entirely on how they do the integration. If they mutate the libraries, then yes. If they just call the libraries, then no.
Posted Jun 7, 2011 17:30 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433)
And if the code is dual-licenced, it lets the distributor CHOOSE. If I use dual MPL/GPL code, I can use the MPL licence and my code does not become GPL.
Posted Jun 7, 2011 18:21 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
Neither MPL nor LGPL will force the distributor to make their program GPL, it should also be noted.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds