License change from GPL3 to LGPL3

[mueh...@inf.fu-berlin.de]

Today we want to announce an important innovation within the mapsforge
project. We have decided to change our license from GPL3 to LGPL3.

The LGPL3 license allows developers to integrate our libraries into
proprietary applications as well. Users of our libraries are no longer
forced to release their source code under the GPL3 license. However,
this does not include modifications to the library itself which lead to
a derivative work. Please consult a professional lawyer if you need
legal advice.

Of course, this change does not affect open source applications which
are distributed under the GPL3 license.

Best regards,
Thilo

[Ludwig]

Could you maybe clarify how you interpret the license change with
respect to use in Android applications? My question specifically
relates to section 4 of the LGPL 'Combined Works', paragraph d and e.

I would assume most uses of the mapsforge library are 'combined works'
in the sense that they use the library to produce an Android app.
This will require the publisher of such app to enable the user to
modify (replace, improve, fix etc) the mapsforge library for use with
the app. This is easily achievable with shared libraries.

However, I do not think that this is possible in Android terms as each
app is signed by the publisher and changing the mapsforge jar file
requires a resigning of the app (which of course can only be done with
the orignial key, which I as a publisher would certainly not give to
users).

The only way a user could resign the app would be if he had the source
code to the app, would change the Android package name in the Manifest
and publish with his own key. But that would require the source code
for the entire app being available to him, which would bring the whole
thing back to the GPL level.

I do understand your intention with the change to LGPL but I do not
understand how you see it implemented in practice. Or am I missing
something here?

Ludwig



On May 12, 1:57 am, "muehlb...@inf.fu-berlin.de" <muehlb...@inf.fu-

>  signature.asc
> < 1KViewDownload

[mueh...@inf.fu-berlin.de]

That is a very interesting question and you are not the first one asking
it (see for example
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4916512/using-lgpl-library-in-paid-android-app).
Unfortunately I cannot find an "official" statement regarding that
Android specific issue by a member of the FSF (or maybe even RMS himself).

As i am not a lawyer i can only say that our intention was to allow
people to integrate our libraries in their own "closed source"
applications. Therefore you should not have to release your complete
source code under the LGPL if you use our libraries. Only modifications
to an LGPL library itself must be published under the same license.

Best regards,
Thilo

[Barys Yakavita]

Why not to move mapsforge project to Apache License, Version 2.0 then? 

[Thilo Mühlberg]

Because the Apache license does not require derivative works to be
distributed using the same license (copyleft). For me this is essential.

Greetings,
Thilo

On 22/10/13 12:23, Barys Yakavita wrote:
> Why not to move mapsforge project to Apache License, Version 2.0 then?
>
> On Friday, May 20, 2011 7:44:34 PM UTC+3, Thilo wrote:
>
> That is a very interesting question and you are not the first one asking
> it (see for example
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4916512/using-lgpl-library-in-paid-android-app

> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4916512/using-lgpl-library-in-paid-android-app>).

> > berlin.de <http://berlin.de>> wrote:
> >> Today we want to announce an important innovation within the
> mapsforge
> >> project. We have decided to change our license from GPL3 to LGPL3.
> >>
> >> The LGPL3 license allows developers to integrate our libraries into
> >> proprietary applications as well. Users of our libraries are no
> longer
> >> forced to release their source code under the GPL3 license. However,
> >> this does not include modifications to the library itself which
> lead to
> >> a derivative work. Please consult a professional lawyer if you need
> >> legal advice.
> >>
> >> Of course, this change does not affect open source applications which
> >> are distributed under the GPL3 license.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Thilo
> >>
> >> signature.asc
> >> < 1KViewDownload
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "mapsforge-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to mapsforge-de...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mapsforge-dev/23ec1959-3a94-4b8f-a34c-1088e2e4d44a%40googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Richard]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 08:19:49PM +0200, Thilo Mühlberg wrote:
> Because the Apache license does not require derivative works to be
> distributed using the same license (copyleft). For me this is essential.

indeed.

> > As i am not a lawyer i can only say that our intention was to allow
> > people to integrate our libraries in their own "closed source"
> > applications. Therefore you should not have to release your complete
> > source code under the LGPL if you use our libraries. Only modifications
> > to an LGPL library itself must be published under the same license.

It would be a good idea to add a statement like this to the copyright notice before
the actual LGPL text.


Richard

---
Name and OpenPGP keys available from pgp key servers