> > yes, that's a good workaround. Likely also the route Steve's
customer
> > should take in this: any modifications to NH, extension classes to NH,
> > place that in an LGPL-ed assembly and the bigger app isn't affected.
>
> Modifications yes. What are extension classes? Neither derived, injected
or
> any other classes of your own authorship must be LGPL. Extension methods
> neither. The key is that the modified LGPL code must still compile and
work
> as a module.
Extension classes which derive from a base class from NH, that could
be a problem, but that's also a small thing: does that 1 class link make it
a derivative work?
> > > The web services part is for the AGPL, not the GPL or LGPL, IIRC.
> > > There are explicit ways to break the links, anything that is out of
> > process
> > > (cmd line, pipes, etc).
> >
> > Oh! you're right, I forgot about that one, indeed. AGPL (A stands
for
> > aggressive? ;)) was the insane one.
>
> A stands for Affero, the original inventor. The name was kept so that -
> guess what - the license condition "Affero GPL 2.0 or higher" would work
for
> the "GNU Affero GPL v3" ;-)
>
> But you're confusing two things here. The AGPL does not say that copyleft
> extends over web service boundaries. It only says that if you provide an
> modified AGPL app "as a service" (in the SaaS sense, not necessarily SOAP-
> like), you must provide the source code. The GPL alone would not protect
the
> authors from a third party "stealing" and extending their code and selling
> it as a service without giving back the code. That makes perfect sense.
it's an insane clause, as a big UI app using a service with 2 GPL
classes behind it doesn't make the app a derivative work per se of the 2
classes. BUt alas, I find all copyleft licenses odd: if you want to give
away your code, use BSD or apache, it's the license which embeds the spirit
of giving away your work for others, not the rule ridden FSF playgound.
> The AGPL is also the preferred license for dual licensing (we do that).
any license is suitable for that, you own the code, you decide how
to license it. You can distribute it under 10 licenses, it's your work, you
decide.
> > system links to it... violation? Judges really won't understand that,
> > most of them can barely handle modern things like keyboards and mice.
> > ;)
>
> They will use an expert witness. Good luck, still...
even then... from own experiences as an expert witness for software
related matter, it takes ages to explain simple things to them, as they
don't have a beta-mindset and have no clue how a computer works, what
software does etc. Relying on their judgment in cases like this is IMHO a
fatal mistake. It of course also depends on whether your countries' system
uses juries (ours doesn't) or not.
> > > Actually, that scenario is safe. You aren't distributing your
> > changes.
> >
> > if you create the website for a client, you do. Many consultants
> > don't get this, but creating software for a 3rd party IS distribution.
>
> No, the GPL permits you to have a contractor build private stuff for you
->
> no need to give away the source code.
true.
> > > IIRC, the MySQL stance is that if you can use the app with more than
> > 1 db,
> > > it doesn't apply.
> >
> > Interesting. A new view on the matter. All their lawyers ever could
> > tell me was 'of course you're in violation in that situation. You can
> > overcome that by becoming a VAR'...
>
> Here's a lot of room for interpretation. If you use a standard interface,
> you're not infringing on any concrete implementation's copyright. If you,
> however, distribute that implementation along with yours, it gets
> complicated. That's why some OSS SW requires you to get other OSS modules
> from the original source, like Moonlight and the free codecs...
>
> There are other grey areas. E.g., the FSF's GPL FAQ says this:
> "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between
> them is limited to invoking the 'main' function of the plug-in with some
> options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case."
Hmm.
Well I asked MySQL about this situation with DbProviderFactory, and
they told me "you have to GPL your driver", even though my driver is a piece
of code which uses dbproviderfactory, has no reference to mysql's ado.net
provider and for example also works with devart's mysql direct by changing a
string in a config file.
Indeed a grey area! It's sad so much confusion is created by various
parties in this, it doesn't make it easier for developers to make
well-informed decisions.
FB
