> 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 ;-)
