I came across a discussion about a patent clause contention between APL 2.0 and LGPL 2.1 and wasn't sure how/if that was relevant.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:26 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > 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 > -- Bryan <><
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
