commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <...@intermeta.de>
Subject Re: [configuration] handling exceptions in AbstractConfiguration
Date Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:03:46 GMT
Emmanuel Bourg <smanux@lfjr.net> writes:

> From a technical/legal point of view there is no reason to avoid a 
>dependency on a LGPLed component in an Apache project, the license FAQ 
>on Hibernate is pretty clear:

>"The use of the unmodified Hibernate binary of course never affects the 
>license of your application or distribution.

>If you modify Hibernate and redistribute your modifications, the LGPL 
>applies."

This is FUD. Hibenate is under LGPL. The LGPL and its implications are
clearly defined by the FSF and they refuse (according to the board) to
clarify the virality and the implications of the LGPL (which has been
written a long, long time ago with C and C++ in mind) when used with
Java code.

The Hibernate people can write on their web site anything they
want. In the end, the only License that you have is LGPL. This is,
what counts in court. Not some "Licensing FAQ" which implies that
program <xxx> is almost LGPL but not exactly and there is this
exception if the wind is blowing from the east and christmas falls on
a monday". [1]

If the Hiberate people really _want_ to make exceptions, they could
easily license under one of the true free licenses which have been
approved by the OSI: e.g. ASFv2, OSL, BSD.

>Excluding LGPLed projects is just a political decision imho.

No, it is not. You should try to consider the implications of
e.g. paragraphs 5 and 6 of LGPLv2 in respect to your application.

	Regards
		Henning

(Can we keep the unavoidable licensing flame-fest centered on one
list? general@jakarta or even general@apache.org preferred).

[1] Everyone that uses Linux with binary modules _should_ be aware,
that this is really a GPL violation. The fact that the copyright
holder (Linus Torvalds) does not intend to sue, does not mean, that
there still is a license violation and strictly spoken, noone that
uses a binary module with the Linux kernel actually has a license for
the OS [2].

[2] personally, I couldn't live without the nvidia accelerated module. :-)
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de        +49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
   Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development

"Fighting for one's political stand is an honorable action, but re-
 fusing to acknowledge that there might be weaknesses in one's
 position - in order to identify them so that they can be remedied -
 is a large enough problem with the Open Source movement that it
 deserves to be on this list of the top five problems."
                       -- Michelle Levesque, "Fundamental Issues with
                                    Open Source Software Development"

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message