You got me worried for a second. Fortunately,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html disagrees :-)
Diego
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 17:17, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote:
> Same thing
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Diego Mijelshon
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Also, what if I implement a NH interface, like IPreInsertEventListener?
>> If the answer is different from the previous one: why?
>>
>> Diego
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 17:12, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
