LGPL v3 compatibilty

Andreas Metzler · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 392

Hello,

does the compat matrix for draft3 http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq still
apply to the released version of LGPLv3?

If it does it could cause quite some pain, since LGPLv3 libraries
could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.

cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Anthony W. Youngman · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 26

In message <20070713150100.GR3558.TakeThisOut@freenet.de>, Michelle Konzack
<linux4michelle.TakeThisOut@freenet.de> writes
>I have coded some programs which are explicit under GPL v2 since I do
>not like v3 (I have my reasons) but I am using a LIB which is currently
>under LGPL v2.
>
>Now the new version of this LIB is v3.
>
>What should I do?

DON'T PANIC (as Douglas Adams said).

If your GPLv2 program links to an LGPLv3 library, then you don't need to
give a monkeys.

The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be
independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your
program is GPL (any version), then it is compatible with any LGPL
library (any version).

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony.TakeThisOut@thewolery.demon.co.uk

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Gervase Markham · External Since: Jun 18, 2005 Posts: 31

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> If your GPLv2 program links to an LGPLv3 library, then you don't need to
> give a monkeys.
>
> The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be
> independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your
> program is GPL (any version), then it is compatible with any LGPL
> library (any version).

I don't think that's correct.

Clearly, as you say, there's no problem from the LGPL library's point of
view. However, the GPL2'd program says that any code that is part of the
program needs to be under the GPL2. Now there are various licenses held
to be compatible with the GPL2, in that their provisions are a subset of
the GPL2s - such as the BSD licence family. So libraries under those are
no problem. And the LGPLv2 can be converted to the GPLv2 via a clause in
it, so LGPLv2 libraries are OK too. But if, for example, your library is
MPLed, you are stuck. There's no way to make MPLed code compatible with
GPLv2. And the same is true of LGPLv3, which can also not be made
compatible with the GPLv2 (because it has extra restrictions over and
above those in GPLv2, and GPLv2 forbids extra restrictions).

Of course, if you own the copyright on the GPLv2 program, you can add a
license exception for linking with the LGPLv3 library.

Gerv

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Steve Langasek · External Since: Dec 13, 2004 Posts: 2140

On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 10:20:29PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <20070713150100.GR3558 RemoveThis @freenet.de>, Michelle Konzack
> <linux4michelle RemoveThis @freenet.de> writes
> >I have coded some programs which are explicit under GPL v2 since I do
> >not like v3 (I have my reasons) but I am using a LIB which is currently
> >under LGPL v2.

> >Now the new version of this LIB is v3.

> >What should I do?

> DON'T PANIC (as Douglas Adams said).

> If your GPLv2 program links to an LGPLv3 library, then you don't need to
> give a monkeys.

> The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be
> independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your
> program is GPL (any version), then it is compatible with any LGPL
> library (any version).

I think you forgot to preface this with the disclaimers "I am not a lawyer",
"I am not a DD", "I don't speak for the FSF", "I don't even bother to read
the other analyses of GPLv2/LGPLv3 interaction that have been posted to this
list", and "this *is* legal advice that I have no business dispensing to
people on a Debian mailing list".

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon RemoveThis @debian.org http://www.debian.org/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Anthony W. Youngman · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 26

In message <20070714221310.GE25591.RemoveThis@dario.dodds.net>, Steve Langasek
<vorlon.RemoveThis@debian.org> writes
>> The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be
>> independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your
>> program is GPL (any version), then it is compatible with any LGPL
>> library (any version).
>
>I think you forgot to preface this with the disclaimers "I am not a lawyer",
>"I am not a DD", "I don't speak for the FSF", "I don't even bother to read
>the other analyses of GPLv2/LGPLv3 interaction that have been posted to this
>list", and "this *is* legal advice that I have no business dispensing to
>people on a Debian mailing list".

Given my experience of lawyers, I strongly suspect my "not a lawyer"
knowledge of law is quite likely to be better than many of theirs' ...
Smile

Yes maybe I should have put disclaimers - I just tend to assume that
people on mailing lists are ordinary people like me ...

And I think Gervase has already corrected me Smile

Mind you. I think, if
you distribute AS SOURCE, GPL code is compatible with pretty much
ANYTHING (I can't remember my analysis, but basically it was along the
lines of "anything else - even components required for successful
compilation - are mere aggregation as far as the source goes Smile

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony.RemoveThis@thewolery.demon.co.uk

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Steve Langasek <vorlon RemoveThis @debian.org> wrote:
> I think you forgot to preface this with the disclaimers "I am not a lawyer",
[...]

Some of those disclaimers, plus "I am not a lawyer qualification authority"
seemed to be missing from yours too.

Or maybe "He Is Not A *" posts should be banned from this list and we can get
back to looking at packages, hmm?

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org