We define this kind of talk : "The immortality of the medusa" On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 withdrawn.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 > > -- Fabio Maulo
