Interesting. As I theorized, I suppose this kind of 'boring bookkeeping' issue is what creates so much friction that near-every OSS project is more or less forced to stick with their initial license selection -- for better or for worse :)
Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > Not really, no. > Take a look at the Linux kernel licensing. You can't license it as anything > but GPL 2, because some of the code *doesn't* have "or later version", so > it is explicitly 2.0 > Now, it is a pretty fair bet that most of the people who contributed the > code wouldn't mind, but... > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Wenig, Stefan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > To my knowledge you can't re-license code you don't own the copyright >> > of. >> >> True, but the community _could_ make a decision together if they really >> wanted. >> >> > Not sure if this is a problem, but I could imagine that code which is >> > ported >> > from Java has to inherit the same license. >> >> Funny, now that you mention it, Java-Hibernate doesn't specify the LGPL >> version either! >> >> /* >> * Hibernate, Relational Persistence for Idiomatic Java >> * >> * Copyright (c) 2010, Red Hat Inc. or third-party contributors as >> * indicated by the @author tags or express copyright attribution >> * statements applied by the authors. All third-party contributions are >> * distributed under license by Red Hat Inc. >> * >> * This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use, >> modify, >> * copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU >> * Lesser General Public License, as published by the Free Software >> Foundation. >> * >> * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, >> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of >> MERCHANTABILITY >> * or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public >> License >> * for more details. >> * >> * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public >> License >> * along with this distribution; if not, write to: >> * Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> * 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor >> * Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA >> */ >> >> SVN contains lgpl.txt with v2.1, but I guess that really means nothing. >> >> On hibernate.org it says v2.1. Again, void. >> >> > 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? >> >> I think he didn't say they're using it, just that this would be an >> advantage. He probably guessed that nobody would care enough about only >> pleasing his lawyers ;-) >> >> >
