Yes, interesting how the "(at your option) any later version" seems to *magically* cover all bases :)
Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think that we can: > http://www.hibernate.org/license.html > > <http://www.hibernate.org/license.html>But if we could, I suggest saying: > LGPL 2.1 or (at your option) any later version. > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All: >> >> 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 >> > >
