Yes to both. For the same reasons you could link both to proprietary software. Neither license applies terms to works they are combined with, except for lgpl requiring that it is possible to upgrade or modify the lgpl software and for the combination to be capable of being relinked. Was there any particular reason that you thought this might not be possible?
Thanks Bruce On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 11:04 Bryan Christ <bryan.chr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am the author of a library that is licensed under the LGPL 2.1. It's > very clear that a closed source work can dynamically link to the library. > That's easy to understand. There are 2 other scenarios however that I am > unclear about: > > 1. Can a LGPL 2.1 dynamically link to an APL 2.0 library or binary? > 2. Can an APL 2.0 binary dynamically link to a LGPL 2.1 library? > > I did a lot of searching on the web first and couldn't find anything > covering this. > > Thanks in advance to whoever replies. > > -- > Bryan > <>< > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
