Dear Nicola, and Mentors.
I'm Haksung in LG Electronics. When I was in Barcelona last year and felt difficulty to understand discussion topics in the LLW 2015, Karen Copenhaver said she could be my mentor and suggested the mentor system to Matija. Very thanks to Karen, I could follow sessions and got lots of valuable information from the workshop.
I'm very happy to hear the new mailing list, mentors.ln@list.fsfe.org. Honestly, I've been hesitating to ask questions using the LN mailing list because I'm not sure whether they might have been asked before. Thank you for providing the useful method for new comers.
Now, I'd like to ask one thing to mentors.
The GENIVI Alliance[1 http://www.genivi.org/] has a public policy for licensing and copyright[2 http://docs.projects.genivi.org/License/Public_Policy_for_GENIVI_Licensing_and_Copyright_v1.6.pdf]. They divided open source licenses into three categories, - Green-light: These licenses have been reviewed by GENIVI and accepted as suitable licenses without restrictions. - Red-light: These licenses have been reviewed by GENIVI and rejected. - Orange-light: These licenses have been reviewed by GENIVI and accepted as suitable licenses in certain cases.
One of the interesting things is they put the LGPL 2.1[3 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html] into Orange-light licenses, but put the LGPL 2.0[4 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.0.html] into Red-light licenses. They say the reason why they reject the LGPLv2.0 in the document[2 http://docs.projects.genivi.org/License/Public_Policy_for_GENIVI_Licensing_and_Copyright_v1.6.pdf] is that the LGPLv2.0 requires distribution of the object code of the whole work that uses the library, to enable the recipient to link his/her modified version of the library to the resulting work.
# Do you think that their classification for LGPL v2.0 is reasonable?
The requirements, distribution of the object code of the whole work that uses the library, is also applicable to LGPLv2.1 as I know.
* GNU FAQ [5 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic] Q) Does the LGPL have different requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered work? (#LGPLStaticVsDynamic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic) A) For the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant version: v2, v2.1 or v3): (1) If you statically link against an LGPL'd library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application. (2) If you dynamically link against an LGPL'd library already present on the user's computer, you need not convey the library's source. On the other hand, if you yourself convey the executable LGPL'd library along with your application, whether linked with statically or dynamically, you must also convey the library's sources, in one of the ways for which the LGPL provides.
Thank you for your answer in advance.
Best Regards, Haksung
[1] http://www.genivi.org/ [2] http://docs.projects.genivi.org/License/Public_Policy_for_GENIVI_Licensing_a... [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.0.html [5] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic
Haksung Jang / 장학성 Senior Research Engineer Open Source Compliance Project, Software Center, CTO, LG Electronics. p: +82 10 3630 5799 e: haksung.jang@lge.com l:https://www.linkedin.com/in/haksung-jang-5b90b3b1
On 2016-05-24 오후 7:09, Nicola Feltrin wrote:
Dear Members of the Legal Network,
As many of you surely know, at the last two LLWs we set up a mentor system that paired more experienced members with eager-to-learn necomers. Given the huge success of the initiative and the fact that a big fraction of this list rarely participates directly in the discussions, we have been considering whether it is possible to expand it to the Legal Network and how.
After some brainstorming we decided to try and set up an experimental mailing list, populated by expert Legal Network members willing to contribute their time to answering simple or already discussed issues. Around the end of this year we will evaluate the success of this initiative and decide where to go from there.
In practice, it works as follows. If you would like to ask a question but are not sure if it's relevant, interesting or has been asked before, you can submit it to mentors.ln@lists.fsfe.org. A mentor from that list will give you a reply in private that will either:
a) contain the answer you were looking for; or b) (if the the issue is new and interesting for the whole Network) encourage you to post it directly to the main list. In case you still feel shy about it, the mentor will also be able to ask your question to the list without mentioning who was the original poster.
The Mentors mailing list is already active and includes a good number of mentors. If you would like to become a mentor yourself, feel free to write me or to FSFE's Legal Team legal@lists.fsfe.org.
With my best regards,
LN mailing list LN@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/ln