roller-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anil Gangolli" <a...@busybuddha.org>
Subject Re: The Roller LGPL issue
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:07:18 GMT

Yes, one can't just add amending text to the LGPL due to the FSF's copyright and restrictions
on the license text itself.

They'd have to write a new and different license "from scratch."  Either way, however, it's
not a small thing from the perspective 
of companies like JBoss.
I also think the Hibernate authors (particularly the JBoss employees) will likely by policy
just redirect us to JBoss Legal if we're 
requesting alternate licensing of Hibernate.  I don't think this is likely to be a fruitful
path at our individual group level.

Personally I feel that:
- Trying to get the LGPL amended or at least officially re-interpreted by FSF to be compatible
with the Apache license with respect 
to Java linking/subclassing is best left to the ASF.

- Failing that, trying to get Hibernate / JBoss to relicense its components under an alternate
license, is also probably best left 
to the ASF.

However, we do need a constructive way to push on this, and to understand the rate of progress
and likelihood of eventual success. 
Suggestions Henri?  Is anything really moving on this front or is this pointless?

We've managed to wedge ourselves on proper releases until we resolve it one way or another.

Would it be utterly inappropriate for me to raise the possibility of adopting a JDO implementation
or trying to achieve pluggable 
persistence all over again?  Hold the tomatoes please.

--a.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com>
To: <roller-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: The Roller LGPL issue


> On 7/11/05, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
>> > Sounds like we could easily get clarifications from the authors of our
>> > three LGPL dependencies.
>>
>> As I understand it, the Hibernate web site commentary regarding the license
>> is legally insufficient.  The LGPL prohibits such external conditions, so
>> changes need to be done as PART of the license.  Basically, my understanding
>> is that unless the FSF issues a corrective statement regarding the LGPL and
>> Java, developers such as those whom you mention cannot use the LGPL in the
>> manner in which they believe they can.  They must take the license, fix it,
>> and issue that as a new license.  If they are willing to do so, we can give
>> them remedial text to repair the license.  Similar issues effect the
>> GPL+Library Exception.
>>
>> This may give you some feel for the "fun" that we've been having fixing the
>> problem.
>
> To give you more of a feel:
>
> I thought it was illegal to release a modified GPL/LGPL:
>
> "Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301, USA
>
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
>
> Also, I thought it was said that the Hibernate clause was a legally
> applicable concept but needed strengthening in the words. There's been
> a lot said though, so Noel and I are probably both right and the
> actual answer is undecided.
>
> As I think someone else has said, it's currently joined with the
> larger issue of ASL/LGPL compatibility. So (for the last N months)
> I've quit hassling about the specific Hibernate example to see what
> happens at the higher level. If that dies, we can push on getting an
> answer on the Hibernate specific.
>
> Not a good answer for Roller's incubation, but there's no way we can
> get any interest in the specific issue again until the more generic
> one has played out.
>
> Hen
> 


Mime
View raw message