Re: [License-discuss] Category B licenses at Apache
On 26/08/15 01:45, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: Larry, Scenario A: I’m looking for an example in my codebase on how to do Foo (of course) and I find a code snippet to do roughly what I want. I cut and paste it into where I need it, modify it slightly and move on. Developers do this all the time. The purpose of open source is to allow them to do this legally. Coders who do this all the time on published code that doesn't have an open source type licence are continually infringing copyright. One of the main reasons for the GPL is to ensure a large pool of code that cane be re-used and re-purposed, whilst, at the same time ensuring that the resulting code goes back into the pool. Scenario B: I am debugging some code and find a spot where an if test should be = bar rather than bar. I fix it while inside the debugger That change is going to have insufficient creative content to have any copyright associated with it. So all you have demonstrated there is that your organisation's configuration control procedures are broken and their ISO 9000 status may need revoking. In any case, typical copyleft licences permit the use of modified versions within an organisation. without realizing that it was in the Category B module. Since I’m modifying the Apache product quite a bit anyway was not immediately obvious that when I checked my changes into the local repo for the Apache product that I made a change in the Category B module. Maybe I simply never knew or had forgotten that I had to be aware there was a category B module. I believe another intent of the GPL Is that people should be able to debug and repair the code that they possess. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Option to fall back from GPL to ASL
On 25/08/15 22:26, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: The vendors of BAR also offer a commercial license for BAR. If somebody buys that license, we want them to be able to use FOO under the commercial-friendly ASL terms without having to give them any extra permission. Right now, those people would still face the GPL label on FOO even though they removed it for themselves from BAR by buying a license. This only becomes an issue if they want to redistribute the code linked against BAR, or want to redistribute a version of the code that only works with BAR. The GPL does not restrict modification or linking within an organisation. It's intent is only to ensure that when it is passed to a third party they can modify and rebuild it without being forced to pay for other licences and without being dependent on code that they are unable to see or modify. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Option to fall back from GPL to ASL
Also, in this situation, the copyright holders of BAR (and thus the licensors) are the parties that would have standing to pursue any action against a distributor who distributes a derivative work of BAR without following the terms of its license (the GPL, or a commercial license). If someone has licensed BAR under a commercial license, and then wants to distribute BAR with FOO under non-GPL terms, the licensors of BAR would presumably not attempt to enforce the GPL's terms, since they know they have granted a commercial license. This assumes that the commercial license even allows distribution of BAR; it probably does not. In that case, there is no distribution, only 'use', and as David Woolley said, users are free to combine works in any way they wish for their own use, regardless of the open source licenses on those works. On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:57 AM, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: On 25/08/15 22:26, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: The vendors of BAR also offer a commercial license for BAR. If somebody buys that license, we want them to be able to use FOO under the commercial-friendly ASL terms without having to give them any extra permission. Right now, those people would still face the GPL label on FOO even though they removed it for themselves from BAR by buying a license. This only becomes an issue if they want to redistribute the code linked against BAR, or want to redistribute a version of the code that only works with BAR. The GPL does not restrict modification or linking within an organisation. It's intent is only to ensure that when it is passed to a third party they can modify and rebuild it without being forced to pay for other licences and without being dependent on code that they are unable to see or modify. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Ochs ch...@ochsnet.com wrote: Some of these addons are themselves open source. The majority of the time the authors of these are not including the open source license. Which I think is legally ok, I'm guessing it actually just creates a dual license, but not an attorney so not sure on this. Snip: Some of these addons are themselves open source. The majority of the time the authors of these are not including the open source license. Which I think is legally ok, I'm guessing it actually just creates a dual license, but not an attorney so not sure on this. How do you know they are 'open source' if they don't include an open source license? Are the completely original works, or do they contain works from others that are distributed under open source licenses? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
