Frans, I think that this is more or less the POINT. By making it so vague, they get a lot of power behind it.
Take a look at a simple GPL like license: http://svnkit.com/license.html <http://svnkit.com/license.html> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
