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 Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:17:22 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> Ping. Haven't seen any more opinions. What's next?
> Please check your e-mail (different list) from last night around 1800 EST,
> which has meeting minutes.

Noel's reference above is, I assume, to the discussion between some ASF 
folks and FSF folks about how to interpret the LGPL.  It's not necessarily 
about fixing "bugs" - it looks like the FSF has ruled out a minor update 
to the LGPL to clarify things, though it sounded like they're working on a 
new license for the Classpath project that could be used by other Java 

But, given their usual glacial pace of licensing discussions, there's the 
parallel path of proposing better language to the Hibernate developers to 
use in the "exception".  For those of you who have recently joined, it was 
the first message to this list; you can obtain it by sending an email to


and there's a thread that follows in subsequent messages.  The issue here 
was that Hibernate's current 'exception', at


seems too unclear, so we tossed around some ideas for a rewrite.  The last 
draft we came to was:

    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, however, must fall under the
    LGPL.  Compilation of the other application and Hibernate (together or
    separately) is not considered a modification.

Henri suggested templating it so that any project X and license L could be 

Since we've had a raft of new subscribers since the last time I issued a 
last call for comments, let me do that one more time.  Last call for 


View raw message