http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/>is a service which may be useful in this case, as any input be developers is mere speculation. The interpretation of a license should be left to professionals, and these are the best available with the correct price. John Davidson On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
