How is a "program" defined in this context?
That is, if I, for example, subclass Dialect, what is affected by the GPL?
The project that contains the class deriving from Dialect?
The whole solution (I hope not!)?
Diego
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 17:03, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote:
> *http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html* *
> *
> *In an object-oriented language such as Java, if I use a class that is
> GPL'ed without modifying, and subclass it, in what way does the GPL affect
> the larger program?*
>
> Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL
> affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class.
>
> *In AGPLv3, what counts as “interacting with [the software] remotely
> through a computer network?”*
>
> If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send
> responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples of
> programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers,
> interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played
> online.
>
> If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user through a
> network, but is being run in an environment where it happens to do so, then
> it does not fall into this category. For example, an application is not
> required to provide source merely because the user is running it over SSH,
> or a remote X session.
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Wenig, Stefan <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Deriving a class from an NH class in a different assembly does _not_
>> create a derived work. That's just a coincidence in language, it's explained
>> in the FAQ (something about java)
>>
>> Calling a service with either GPL or AGPL code will _not_ affect the
>> license of the caller. You got that one wrong again, I recommend you read
>> sections 13 of both GPL and AGPLv3 if you don't take my word for it.
>>
>> And copyleft does make sense. You can argue forever wheter it's more free
>> - that's a matter of definition. But it does have advantages as well as
>> disadvantages. (IMHO strong copyleft is too restrictive for libraries, but a
>> valid choice for applications. but that's just me.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Stefan
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [email protected] [
>> [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [
>> [email protected]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 18:56
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
>>
>> > > 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
>>
>
>
