LGPL License is incompatible with Apache License

[rubychan]

LGPL License is incompatible with Apache License

[korny]

I’d even love to see it under plain GPL to spread open-source software

Not my cup of tea, sorry. I want to encourage people to use OSS, not force them.

It would be great If dual-license it under Apache License or MIT :)

I'm not sure a) how to do this, and b) if I am allowed to license it under any other license than LGPL without breaking the rules of LGPL. Any ideas?

[korny]

Actually it seems best to just change the license to MIT and see if anybody starts a flamewar. If not, all licensing problems, including this ticket, should be solved.

[korny]

I don't really know the differences of all these open-source licenses. I chose LGPL because it seemed to be compatible to most needs.

You can use CodeRay in your project. Just don't claim somebody else wrote it :-)

Do I need to dual-license it under Apache to fix this?

[jessehu]

It would be great If dual-license it under Apache License or MIT :) I found many ruby gem are licensed under Apache License or MIT.

CodeRay is written by you, I have to claim it to the legal guys :-)

[Quintus]

Just informational: The LGPL enforces the ability to modify your project in any way. It may be incorporated into proprietary works which can stay proprietary, but the parts licensed under LGPL need to be distributed with it in a way that allows to modify the library the project uses. This is not enforced by neither the Apache license nor the MIT/BSD licenses. The relevant part from the LGPL is section 4 which requires someone incorporating a library licensed under the LGPL to

• a) state that you are using the library
• b) provide copies of the GPL and LGPL license documents
• c) show the library’s copyright notice and finally the interesting point,
• d) Either distribute the library’s sourcocode along with the program plus the ability to relink the program with a modified version of the library or use a shared library mechanism that allows to interchange the library with a modified version without breaking the program (assuming one doesn’t change the API).

Note however I’m not a lawyer and just saying what I interpret from the license text.

...and for such a great project as CodeRay I’d even love to see it under plain GPL to spread open-source software. :-)

Valete,
Quintus

[jessehu]

Thanks Korny :) I also agree this: I want to encourage people to use OSS, not force them. As long as we recognize the great effort of the authors by keeping copy right headers in source code : Copyright (C) 2005-2012 Kornelius Kalnbach [email protected] (@murphy_karasu)

[korny]

I close this, but you are welcome to continue the discussion.