Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 70013 invoked by uid 99); 14 Jan 2005 20:58:36 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from yandell.d.iglou.com (HELO kongo.flamefew.net) (64.253.103.116) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:58:36 -0800 Received: by kongo.flamefew.net (Postfix on Linux (i386), from userid 1000) id E141E7FB6; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kongo.flamefew.net (Postfix on Linux (i386)) with ESMTP id E017A7F69; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:56:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:56:53 -0500 (EST) From: Henri Yandell X-X-Sender: hen@kongo To: Brian Behlendorf Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Re: LGPL and "the Hibernate clause". In-Reply-To: <20050101190145.N34441@fez.hyperreal.org> Message-ID: References: <20041221201253.P14071@fez.hyperreal.org> <20041230180340.C34441@fez.hyperreal.org> <20041231112229.U34441@fez.hyperreal.org> <20050101190145.N34441@fez.hyperreal.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Checked: Checked On Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Henri Yandell wrote: >> >> 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. Ping. Haven't seen any more opinions. What's next? Hen