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 ;-)
>
>

Reply via email to