www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>
Subject Re: LGPL and "the Hibernate clause".
Date Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:06:17 GMT
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> *******
> 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.

I was trying to think more of the kinds of rights associated with 
copyright than of the differences between import/extends/implements etc. 
"Incorporate" is probably fine; other opinions?

> 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.

I think the license and clause are only relevant in the situations where 
the applications are distributed, not privately used, so I wouldn't worry 
too much about it; I added to the confusion with "use and/or distribute" I 
suppose.

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

I want to hear a few more opinions on the above once people are back at 
work (say by Tuesday or Wednesday) before we talk with Hibernate about it. 
Need feedback as well on the best way to tell them why we think their 
current clause has these shortcomings.

 	Brian


Mime
View raw message