www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: LGPL and "the Hibernate clause".
Date Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:53:42 GMT
On Monday 24 January 2005 20:07, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > Personally, I also believe that ASF has no real effect in protecting the
> > user from a predatory company. The best that ASF has done so far is to
> > provide a large set of people with a 'known playing field', which seems
> > safe enough to play on.
> The user? If you mean developers, then afaik ASF members and PMC members
> would be defended by the ASF lawyers if the ASF agreed with the defendant
> (ie) upload windows source code into ASF and they're unlikely to protect
> :) ). Otherwise, the ASF doesn't exist to protect user's from predatory
> companies, except in terms of remaining open etc.

No, I actually meant "user" as in the people who uses the ASF codebases in 
their own products and/or as part of their operations. In the case of LGPL, I 
think only distribution is an issue, since AFAICT you can make whatever 
changes to LGPL and not publish those if you don't re-distribute.
ASF is saying "We give you the right to..." in the ALv2. 
Up until now, reading the words in the ALv2, gives *me* (as a user) a lot of 
comfort that the codebase is free from legal problems, bar unvolunteered 
patent infringements, which is a constant threat.

> <snip> ....
> > So, from my perspective, only 2 scenarios would satisfy me, to distribute
> > ASF code "linked" to Hibernate;
> >
> > 1. FSF makes an amendment to the LGPL where FSF outlines how a compatible
> > linking can be made, which Hibernate accepts as their new license.
> This is a legal question. Whether Hibernate can or cannot define their own
> terms or interpretation on top of the FSF licence. Our lawyers are saying
> they can (reading into the fact that the exception came from Brian and
> them).

Well, yes and no. 
Yes, the ASF legal counsel can form an official ASF stance on the matter, as 
they did in the matter whether ALv2 code can be incorporated in GPLed code 
(can), which I believe is now amended to "can not".

No, everyone doesn't have to agree with ASF's official stance (like FSF has 
objected in the past) and perhaps I should have emphasized more on "my own 
interpretation" and "my own actions" if this becomes a reality.
I.e. *I* will not re-distribute ASF projects which comes into this territory, 
since *I* am not willing to be in what *I* consider a gray-zone.

Others, I am sure, will make their own assessment and act to the best of their 


To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message