> 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 :)
it's also a reason why some OSS projects require that contributions
are automatically include a transfer of the (c) to the FSF.
It makes whatever happens to the project easier. Of course, you then
depend on what the FSF cooks up, in general not always a good idea.
FB
>
> 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 ;-)
>
>
>
>
