Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:00:04 +0100, Simon Waters  
<simon@wretched.demon.co.uk> 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:http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html>

> 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. :)

/L
--
Lasse R. Nielsen - atwork@infimum.dk
 'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine'