[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?

From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
Subject: Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:37:06 +0200
User-agent: Opera M2/7.53 (Win32, build 3850)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:00:04 +0100, Simon Waters <> wrote:

Linking is specifically excluded from the scope of the LGPL by section
5. Linking does not create a derivative work in the LGPL, but a "work
that uses the library".

Making a program that *can* be linked to the Library creates a "work that
uses the Library". But for actually linking with the library:

From section 5:
 However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates
 an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains
 portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".
 The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states
 terms for distribution of such executables.

And, when reading section 6, it puts requirements on the license you can
distribute the derivative under, which is why I think it is incorrect to
say that:
 The use of the unmodified Hibernate binary of course never affects the
 license of your application or distribution.

It might not affect it severely (depending on your desired license), but
it does affect it. Unless I am missing something, which is why I ask
(if nothing else, in order to get more convincing arguments to throw
back at the one I'm discussing this with).

Are you reading the LGPL or the GPL?

The LGPL: <URL:>

The LGPL seems an appropriate licence to achieve their aims, although
I'm not sure how the FSF would view their intent of "keeping it open
source", surely they mean free ;)

I'm wouldn't be too sure. They might to have chosen the license for its
features, not its ideology. :)

Lasse R. Nielsen -
 'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine'

reply via email to

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