www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: LGPL and "the Hibernate clause".
Date Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:02:45 GMT


*******
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> V1.1:
>  Any use and/or redistribution of Hibernate within another application
>  under any other license will not cause the LGPL to apply to that other
>  application.  Modifications to Hibernate, however, must fall under the
>  LGPL. Compilation of the other application and Hibernate (together or
>  separately) is not considered a modification.
*******

> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Does my rework make it clearer?  I actually think the phrasing you refer to 
> in their clause is an error; the LGPL should apply to Hibernate whether it's 
> redistributed in modified or unmodified form.  But in either case, the LGPL 
> should not affect the license of the work that links to it.

+1 on the However change.
I'm +1 to the Incorporate instead of use/distribute. Interfaces, 
extension, and other things are all happily handled by Incorporate.

Might be my misunderstanding too; I thought that as long as I don't 
distribute a GPL'd app or LGPL'd library, I can happily modify it and use 
it within my own boundaries.

Maybe that doesn't affect the clause above. If I modify it, it falls under 
the LGPL, however that then has conditions and perhaps after the clause 
has handed my code to the LGPL (as such) the LGPL then declares to not be 
interested if I don't intend to distribute.

What's the next step? aka, what's left before we can use a diplomatic way 
to discuss it with Hibernate?

Hen

Mime
View raw message