4 Replies Latest reply on Feb 8, 2010 4:30 AM by Helmut Ziegler

    Licensing issue LGPL vs. Apache?

    Helmut Ziegler Newbie



      we got a message from a legal department that says we can't use Richfaces because there's a licensing conflict.

      They say that Richfaces which is licensed under LGPL V2.1 uses Xalan which is licensed under the Apache license. And that isn't allowed.


      Here's the part of the LGPL that poses the restriction:

      10. Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.


      And here's the part of the Apache V2.0 license that should be a conflict:

      3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of       this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,       worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable       (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,       use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,       where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable       by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their       Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)       with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You       institute patent litigation against any entity (including a       cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work       or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct       or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses       granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate       as of the date such litigation is filed.



      Does anyone have experience with that topic?




        • 1. Re: Licensing issue LGPL vs. Apache?
          Jay Balunas Master
          I just wanted to let you know we are reviewing this, but we do not think there is an issue here.   Stay tuned for more "official" word :-)
          • 2. Re: Licensing issue LGPL vs. Apache?
            Helmut Ziegler Newbie
            great, thanks for the feedback!
            • 3. Re: Licensing issue LGPL vs. Apache?
              Jay Balunas Master

              The more "official" response:


              The question seems to be whether there is a licensing problem in
              RichFaces because, while much of the code is specifically licensed
              under LGPL version 2.1, there is also some code which calls Xalan API,
              that is licensed under the Apache License 2.0.  It is important to
              note that there are no files in the RichFaces source that
              individually contain both Apache-licensed code and LGPL-licensed


              It is true that the Apache License 2.0 conflicts with *GPL* version
              2 (not GPL version 3, or code licensed as "GPLv2 or later"), though
              we think the main problem there is the upstream indemnification
              clause in the Apache License and not the patent-related clauses.
              However, we interpret LGPL version 2.1 in such a way that the same
              license conflict would only arise if an individual .java or .class
              file were made up of or derived from both LGPL-licensed and
              Apache-licensed copyrightable code.  Otherwise, Java projects may
              contain both Apache-licensed code and LGPL-licensed code without
              conflict. That is, the scope of the LGPL extends only to individual
              files, and not to larger works, unlike the GPL.  In this respect,
              our interpretation of the LGPL treats it similarly to licenses like
              the Mozilla Public License and the Eclipse Public License. Indeed,
              many other JBoss projects contain both LGPL-licensed code and
              Apache-licensed code. We believe that our interpretation of the LGPL
              is consistent with the prevailing longstanding interpretation in the
              open source community, particularly in Java contexts.


              Hope this helps :-)



              1 of 1 people found this helpful
              • 4. Re: Licensing issue LGPL vs. Apache?
                Helmut Ziegler Newbie

                Thanks a lot. I think these are some good arguments. Let's see what they say ;-)