This is a new record, 80+ mails, but we can do something better. At 100 GMail will auto-generate a new thread.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 Once you grant a license such as the GPL or LGPL, it cannot be withdrawn.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 > > -- Fabio Maulo
