Not really. It is only with the *GPL sort of licenses that this happens. There is no problem of moving between BSD and Apache, for example.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ;-) >>> >>> >> >
