To my knowledge you can't re-license code you don't own the copyright of.
Not sure if this is a problem, but I could imagine that code which is ported
from Java has to inherit the same license.
Also, IMHO GPL 3 protects better against patent trolls (and as you might
know, RH settled with Firestar over a lawsuit filed by Firestar over a
patent violation by Hibernate) but it's a very complicated license, and the
language in it is so obscure that everyone can distillate her/his own
opinion from it how it should be applied.
Be aware that re-licensing code will affect everyone using it.
What I don't understand is that they're concerned about what to provide for
reverse engineering but at the same time they're developing a GPL v3
application? Isn't that odd, considering that a GPL-ed application already
implies you should provide all code? I.o.w.: aren't they concerned about
something else, i.e.: the dual license they likely want to apply, namely a
commercial license as well?
FB
> I'm sure licensing choice for NH is a pretty uninteresting topic <g>, but
> I've been approached by a potential NH adopter asking if we would ever
> consider moving from LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3 as part of the NH3 release cycle.
>
> As I understand it, the (general) motivator behind creating the LGPLv3 was
> to provide an LGPL license version that is more compatible with GPLv3-
> licensed code (e.g., if LGPLv2.1 code is linked into GPLv3 code, there are
> apparently some potentially contradictory clauses between the LGPLv2.1 and
> the GPLv3 that would make such a release legally conflicted).
>
> The user has pointed out that their legal department has expressed
specific
> concern re: the following text in section 6 of LGPLv2.1:
>
>
>
> "(...) you may also combine or link a 'work that uses the Library'
> with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and
> distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms
> permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
> engineering for debugging such modifications."
>
>
> They have expressed some concern re: the potential ambiguity of the scope
of
> what must be made available for reverse-engineering under this clause,
> fearing that it might be interpreted as including their own (presumably
> commercial) solution. They have also noted that this ambiguity appears to
> have been acknowledged by the LGPL authors as the related phrase has been
> modified in LGPLv3 to read:
>
>
>
> "You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that,
> taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions
of
> the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for
> debugging such modifications (...)".
>
>
>
> I am neither a lawyer nor do I desire to become one so I cannot really
offer
> an opinion re: whether one of these clauses is more or less clear than the
> other in any meaningful way. But I am wondering if anyone can proffer a
> compelling reason for us NOT to move to LGPLv3 as part of the NH3 release
so
> that it can be more easily used in concert with GPLv3-based proejcts.
>
>
> What are people's opinions on this?
>
> Steve Bohlen
> [email protected]
> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
> http://twitter.com/sbohlen
