I may have inadvertently conflated two independent issues in my initial e-mail. The user who contacted me wasn't (to my knowledge) interested in LGPLv3 b/c of the (suggested) "increased compatibility" with GPLv3 -- that "increased compatibility" was what I was able to infer/deduce from reading overviews of "why would anyone consider using LGPLv3" sort of info that I found in my cursory investigation into the matter.
The user's specific issue seems to be in re: the stated lack of clarity in re: the scope of what's required to be 'reverse-engineerable' under LGPLv2.1. I'm near-certain from their concerns that their own project/product/code is closed-source/commercial. Sorry for the confusion! That said, I've never had much clarity myself in re: comprehending what's really involved in changing any OSS project's license (who as the "right" to do so, what is the practical effect of doing so, what happens to the code that "existed" under the prior license, etc.). AFAICT, there isn't really much clarity available around such issues (which may be why most OSS projects just "live with" the license they initially select "leave well enough alone" <g>). Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
