> AAAAHHHHHHHH!
>
> Please Frans, it's nothing personal either, but you're obviously not into
> *GPL licensing that deep. First the claims about the AGPL being viral over
> web service boundaries, and now you tell people that any contributor can
> just revoke their contribution from LGPL usage? Please be careful with
such
> claims!
errr, the contributor OWNS his work by law, and if the contributor
(still copyright holder!) doesn't want to distribute his work anymore, he's
entitled to do so. How can a GPL license overrule that law? It can't. I
simply don't understand why you think a copyright holder CANT revoke
distribution rights of the work he owns.
About AGPL's clause over webservices, I indeed misinterpreted it,
you're right, I'm not.
> Once you grant a license such as the GPL or LGPL, it cannot be withdrawn.
> You can stop distributing it under that license, you can release new
> versions without that license (if you own all necessary rights), but you
> cannot prevent other people from using the previously released code based
> upon the license it was released under.
It's debatable, as it depends on what you see as 'ownership right':
if I give you the right to use a piece of code I wrote, and after a year I
decide to revoke it, do I have that right or not? Only if you received from
me the right that you may use it indefinitely. For example dutch copyright
law is written to protect the copyright holder, nothing can be done to the
changed work without the approval of the copyright holder, this is a
difference between e.g. dutch law and US law and was also a problem with
translating the creative commons to a dutch law compatible version.
\o/ It depends! (where you are ;))
> At least that's what the FSF says. GPLv2 does not have the word
irrevocable
> in it, GPLv3 does. It has never been tested in court AFAIK, but the way
you
> put it, it looks just uninformed to me.
I'm not uninformed, trust me. I don't think you're uninformed
either, ISV's have to be well informed about what licensing is all about and
what the consequences are, for example when someone does work for you or
wants to contribute code to your project.
> Thousands of OSS projects would be in danger if that was true, including
> Linux. I really don't think that this is a possibility that should be
> considered by the NH team!
look at the (c) of the sourcecode. :) You quoted a header of
Hibernate, the copyright is with RH, owner of JBoss. This isn't done because
they like to own stuff, but because of that they want to be able to decide
what happens to the code.
What I suggested, an NH foundation which owns the (c), you don't
have the problems arising from 'owner controls what can be done', the NH
foundation is in that case the owner.
> BTW, we're not safe from patents in the EU:
> http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/05/german-high-court-declares-all-
> software.html
yeah, true. Though EU patent law overrules a german judge (if I'm
told correctly!), although it's a troubling progression. Software patents
will hurt us all bigtime.
FB
