> Technically you're right. But a license like the GPL has two parties: the
> licensor who gives away rights, and the licensee who accepts the license
by
> using or modifying the software. That's very much like a contract.
the licensor doesn't give away anything, that's a core point of
understanding copyright law: the owner doesn't give away anything, he only
grants rights. That's a fundamental thing. copyleft is meant to break this:
'granting' should be 'giving', as ownership should be a thing of the past. A
noble thing, but in practice it doesn't work.
It can't be a contract as a contract is not about granting X to
party P, a contract is about mutual obligations between the parties involved
and what happens if one or more parties don't do what they agreed to do.
Also a fundamental part of understanding licenses.
Your re-motion code and system is your property and you only grant a
small set of rights to others with a small set of conditions. You don't give
away anything. Same with NH's LGPL: nothing is given away, only usage rights
are granted and modification rights are granted.
> Also, like a contract it is subject to a variety of different legal
system, the
> worst of them being Common Law. So all the intricacies of contracts apply,
> and I'm not convinced that it's so easy to make a much simpler version
that
> actually holds in court like the GPL did. Anyway, understanding the basics
> of Copyright alone will get you nowhere near understanding the concept of
> Copyleft.
which is irrelevant, really. :) Copyleft is some FSF
agenda/politician's view. Copyright law on the other hand is what everyone
has to deal with.
Back to the topic, it might be a good idea to research who owns
which pieces of code in NH so things can get organized (like re-licensing,
license changes etc.) more efficiently. OTOH, if no-one knows, NH also can't
be brought to court in some patent troll's case like with the greedy
Firestar lamers.
FB
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate-
> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:05 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
> >
> > > 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] [nhibernate-
> > [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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
