> Copyright laws may be simple, but a license is a contract, and contracts
are
> always complicated under common law.
license isn't a contract, it's a set of rules. That's different. A
contract is a legal obligation. How a license applies, how strong the list
of rules is also differs per country (e.g. reading an Eula and accepting it
is that equal to signing a contract? in most countries: no).
> What can I say. I hate the wording, I don't trust the FSF's motives, but
so
> far these licenses worked exactly as they were designed to do. You don't
> have to hate proprietary software to accept the notion of copyleft.
sure they've worked well, and if you're behind the philosophy that
if you use/change GPL-ed code you have to give your additions/changes back
to the community, it is the best thing to do. What I hate is the huge lack
of understanding among the average developer what copyright law is and how
it works. As if it's only something related to commercial proprietairy
software.
FB
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [nhibernate-
> [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 23:15
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
