[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?

From: Rui Miguel Seabra
Subject: Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:05:55 +0100

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 16:52 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> That's allowed by the [L]GPL itself. A non-contract simply can't 
> restrict my "mv" right.

Neither the GPL or the LGPL affect the "mv" right. They affect the "cp

>  A non-contract can't prevent me from 
> creating a whole bunch of binary-only copies incorporating GPL'ed 
> original and/or derivative work(s) and distribute them under 17 
> USC 109 using my own very restrictive contractual terms meant to 
> protect my modifications (compilations aside for a moment) as 
> trade secrets (clauses like "No Reverse Engineering", etc).

The GPL is not a contract. It's an unilateral grant of permission to do
things, which normally copyright doesn't allow you, under certain

You don't have to sign or agree with it. Nothing else gives you any "cp"
rights (notice the nice and different use of quotes).

> Bah. Make Your Bet, rms.

Funny. For someone so certain as you are, it is indeed quite a small
value you bet (in comparison with your certainty).

Just for the sport of it, I'll give you one cent (whichever is worth
more at the moment, Euro or US Dollar) if you're right, and hope nothing
more than the same from yourself if you're wrong.

Other than that, I don't bet for money. This is purely symbolic.


+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]