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 >
