It's only mindboggling because the FSF law firm wants it to be. Copyright
law is really simple and straight forward: every 10 year old can understand
the law texts of these laws, it's not rocketscience. That the (L)GPL is so
complicated is therefore unnecessary and actually kind of disturbing
(considering the fact they're pushing their agenda of 'property is evil'.)
FB
> that's because oren was quoting a GPL question instead of an LGPL question
> before. guys, this is mind-numbing stuff. you need to read carefully, and
it
> will still be hard to fully grasp it. it certainly took me some time...
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [email protected] [nhibernate-
> [email protected]] on behalf of Diego Mijelshon
> [[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 22:27
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
>
>
> 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: nhibernate-
> [email protected] [[email protected]] on
> behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010
18:56
>
> To: nhibernate-
> [email protected] <mailto:nhibernate-
> [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 <http://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
>
>
>
>
>
