On 11/06/2015 20:47, co...@ccil.org wrote: > I think it would require that the recipient explicitly accept the license > as a requirement to getting LibreOffice (or whatever), which would make > it not Open Source.
Possibly, and I would have thought that it would require more than a mere copyright licence could grant - I just used it as a relatively crude hypothetical example and I'm glad the GPL doesn't work that way! On 11/06/2015 20:47, co...@ccil.org wrote: >> With respect to point two, you'd need to show that the apps built using >> Rapid are actually derived works. From the viewpoint of the Free >> Software Foundation, they would probably see that as the apps are >> completely dependent on Rapid, perhaps moreso than a software library, >> the apps would therefore form "derivative works" and be licensed under >> the GPL. > Almost certainly not. Before open-source Java systems existed, the > FSF discouraged people from writing free Java apps, but didn't deny > that an app released under a free license was free. See > <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.en.html>; there is no longer > a Java trap, of course. To be clear, I'm of the mindset that Rapid's current licence does not require apps developed with it to themselves be licensed under an open source licence, and I give the possiblity it being a derivative work as just that - a possiblity. I do maintain that it's a possibility due to the longstanding debate and uncertainty over whether dynamic linking is sufficient to create a derivative work under the terms of the GPLv3, and say if an app developer wanted to make an app using Rapid and release the app solely under a proprietary licence, this is something that developer ought to give some thought to. On 11/06/2015 20:53, Gareth Edwards wrote: > Over on my Reddit post (http://redd.it/39gpcy) there's a reply that as > Rapid is a server platform it doesn't get distributed like a typical > desktop application so GPLv3 doesn't apply, and AGPLv3 should be used > instead. Giving AGPL a quick read this makes sense to me, but not > having heard of it before I wondered whether AGPL was sound and/or a > better choice? The AGPL might well be preferable to the GPL in this scenario, as (and I quote from the AGPLv3 itself) "if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge". Therefore distribution of the program itself isn't the sole 'trigger' but also where an end-user actually uses the app then they would have a right to the source code under the same terms. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss