Patch contributors must agree to allow licensing of the contribution under
LGPL. If the patch is small enough (few lines) explicit allowence on their
part is not needed as we can implicitily apply their patch under LGPL. For
larger changesets we should be getting explicit approval from them.
Yes, GPL-3 doesn't mix well with LGPL.
/max
On Nov 24, 2010, at 17:27, Scheper, Erik-Berndt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was checking out HHH-5721, but it contains a patch that is licensed under
> GPL-v3.
>
> I guess this is incompatible with Hibernate's license, or am I mistaken here?
>
> Regards,
>
Hi,
I was checking out HHH-5721, but it contains a patch that is licensed under
GPL-v3.
I guess this is incompatible with Hibernate's license, or am I mistaken here?
Regards,
Erik-Berndt Scheper
Disclaimer:
This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is
the pr
I have not applied this yet.
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010, at 08:30 am, Scheper, Erik-Berndt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently working on a few improvements of the Envers documentation.
> Of course, this works fine for the 3.6 branch, but I'd like to build on the
> master branch too.
>
> However
Hi,
I'm currently working on a few improvements of the Envers documentation.
Of course, this works fine for the 3.6 branch, but I'd like to build on the
master branch too.
However, it seems there is no gradle target for this yet. Or am I missing
something?
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Re
