www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@generationjava.com>
Subject Re: LGPL and "the Hibernate clause".
Date Fri, 31 Dec 2004 02:19:23 GMT


On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

>> b) Is there a better clarification we could suggest to Hibernate and others 
>> like them who want to use the LGPL with a clarification?
>
> Jason and I came up with language that seems reasonable; I believe it's worth 
> putting in front of the Hibernate developers and asking them what they think:
>
>  Any incorporation of Hibernate under or within another application under
>  any other license will not cause the LGPL to apply to that other
>  application.  Modifications to Hibernate must also fall under the LGPL.
>  Compilation of the other application and Hibernate (together or
>  separately) is not considered a modification.

Short, snappy, punchy, I like it :)

Some questions on the Modifications line. Firstly, is the 'also' needed? 
Seems unnecessary for the text.

However, it does imply that if you modify Hibernate and do not distribute, 
you have to LGPL it, whereas Hibernate's clause specifies that you have to 
modify+distribute to need to apply LGPL.

Otherwise, I think everything in Hibernate's clause is still covered by 
the above. One bit I like is that it can be templated:

For Project X under Licence L:
   Any incorporation of X under or within another application under
   any other license will not cause the L to apply to that other
   application.  Modifications to X must also fall under the L.
   Compilation of the other application and X (together or
   separately) is not considered a modification.

I'm not sure if there are other Licences that we'd want to try and apply 
it to, but I like that it doesn't discuss dynamic-linking, imports, 
extension etc.

Hen

Mime
View raw message