Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: 209.237.226.90 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of brian@collab.net)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:29:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net>
To: Henri Yandell <bayard@generationjava.com>
cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: LGPL and "the Hibernate clause".
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412302111420.22277@kongo>
Message-ID: <20041231112229.U34441@fez.hyperreal.org>
References: <20041221201253.P14071@fez.hyperreal.org>
 <20041230180340.C34441@fez.hyperreal.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412302111420.22277@kongo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 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.

You're right, it is unnecessary and can be removed.  Might be better to 
add a "however" to clarify, and change "incorporate" to "use and/or 
redistribution", too.  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.

> 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.

> 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.

Right.

> 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.

I am pretty sure there are few other licenses that will require this kind 
of thing.

 	Brian