Re: [Virtuoso-users] Licensing (Was: Virtuoso Open Source Edition and distributed SPARQL queries)

[Emiliano Heyns]

On 3/20/07, Tim Haynes  wrote:


We will be updating the website with these clarifications in the near
future.



Any news on the new Virtuoso version? The VOS site hasn't been updated in a
while.

Regards,
Emile

Re: [Virtuoso-users] Licensing (Was: Virtuoso Open Source Edition and distributed SPARQL queries)

[Tim Haynes]

Emiliano Heyns wrote:
[]

Yes, agreed. That does mean that application builders must take extra care
when including other non-GPL libraries. I've been in discussions where
applications that use JDBC, .Net providers and ODBC fall; the "contact
surface" of the application is not directly with the libraries that the GPL
app delivers to facilitate these conduits, but they do live in the same
address space as the calling app. I am not sure whether that constitutes
derivative use; most of the discussions I was in petered out before a
conclusion was reached; my reading of the GPL says (but I am not a 
lawyer by

any stretch of the imagination) that the letter would allow non-GPL use,
while the intent is perfectly clear that it would be regarded as derivative
use. Maybe the GPLv3 addresses this, I'm not up to speed with it.


You'll be pleased to know we're also adding the following exemption for 
exactly this case:


> Client Protocol Driver exemptions
>
In addition, as a special exemption, OpenLink Software gives permission 
to use the unmodified client libraries (ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET and OleDB providers)
> in your own application whether open-source or not, with no obligation 
to use

> the GPL on the resulting application.


In all other respects you must abide by the terms of the GPL.


This will be in the next release and website update.

Regards,

~Tim
--
Tim Haynes
OpenLink Software

Re: [Virtuoso-users] Licensing (Was: Virtuoso Open Source Edition and distributed SPARQL queries)

[Emiliano Heyns]

On 3/20/07, Tim Haynes  wrote:



After conferring with Kingsley and others, I'd like to set the record
straight on licensing.

First, the GPL says nothing about commercial use or otherwise. It is



Which doesn't mean that OpenLink can't add clauses of  its own. It's your
software after all.

permitted as long as you abide by the GPL terms, notably:


* if your application directly uses Virtuoso's sources or libraries
(eg
libvirtuoso), then the GPL forces your application to be released under
the
GPL too;



Yes, agreed. That does mean that application builders must take extra care
when including other non-GPL libraries. I've been in discussions where
applications that use JDBC, .Net providers and ODBC fall; the "contact
surface" of the application is not directly with the libraries that the GPL
app delivers to facilitate these conduits, but they do live in the same
address space as the calling app. I am not sure whether that constitutes
derivative use; most of the discussions I was in petered out before a
conclusion was reached; my reading of the GPL says (but I am not a lawyer by
any stretch of the imagination) that the letter would allow non-GPL use,
while the intent is perfectly clear that it would be regarded as derivative
use. Maybe the GPLv3 addresses this, I'm not up to speed with it.

Emile

Re: [Virtuoso-users] Licensing (Was: Virtuoso Open Source Edition and distributed SPARQL queries)

[Tim Haynes]

Emiliano Heyns wrote:
[]


I've been thinking about this, and I am still not certain about how to read
the licensing. If I were to build that CMS, who would get to use it? Only
private persons? Only approved (by whom?) OSS projects? Only OSS Projects
that use the GPL exclusively?

Would a commercial user be required to get an virtuoso license? Would and
ISP offering it need one, or would its users need one?

I get the proprietary vs. open source bit, but the commercial vs.
non-commercial is not clear to me.


After conferring with Kingsley and others, I'd like to set the record 
straight on licensing.


First, the GPL says nothing about commercial use or otherwise. It is 
permitted as long as you abide by the GPL terms, notably:


   * if your application directly uses Virtuoso's sources or libraries (eg 
libvirtuoso), then the GPL forces your application to be released under the 
GPL too;
   * modifications to system table, stored-procedures and related source 
code etc. must be licensed under the GPL also;

   * making source code available when requested.

Second, Virtuoso is a platform providing various languages (SQL/PL, VSP, 
VSPX), a WebDAV store and a means of packaging (VAD), in which you can 
write your own application(s). As author, you have copyright on the 
original code you write, and can therefore choose your own distribution 
license terms on your own VAD packages. To someone maintaining such a 
package, Virtuoso is a "dependency".


Third, contributions of modifications to the Virtuoso open-source project 
must be under the terms of the GPL.


If you have questions concerning Virtuoso's licensing and your own 
projects, please contact us at vos.ad...@openlinksw.com.


We will be updating the website with these clarifications in the near future.

Regards,

~Tim
--
Tim Haynes
OpenLink Software

Re: [Virtuoso-users] Licensing (Was: Virtuoso Open Source Edition and distributed SPARQL queries)

[Emiliano Heyns]

On 3/15/07, Emiliano Heyns  wrote:



But MySQL under the GPL does allow commercial use (hence, a.o. all those
ISPs using it). It just doesn't allow you to distribute proprietary apps
with MySQL. The two angles are entirely different. Again, the Linux kernel
serves as an example: you cannot create a derivative proprietary product
from the linux kernel since it is GPL. But you are allowed, without any
financial or license-auditing strings attached, commercial use of the
linux kernel (and MySQL), even when embedded in a GPLed application you
intend to exploit commercially (routers with embedded Linux, for example).
And with MySQL and Linux you are even allowed to build applications that are
both proprietary and intended for commercial use -- as long as it is for
in-company use only.

I'd say it's at least grey-area material, and I'd not want to put anyone
in grey-area situations. Given the scenario above, I would benefit from the
users contributing since they would en passant be paying for hosting my own
site. Splitting hairs, maybe, but I'm just trying to demonstrate the dilemma
I see.



I've been thinking about this, and I am still not certain about how to read
the licensing. If I were to build that CMS, who would get to use it? Only
private persons? Only approved (by whom?) OSS projects? Only OSS Projects
that use the GPL exclusively?

Would a commercial user be required to get an virtuoso license? Would and
ISP offering it need one, or would its users need one?

I get the proprietary vs. open source bit, but the commercial vs.
non-commercial is not clear to me.

Emile

Re: [Virtuoso-users] Licensing (Was: Virtuoso Open Source Edition and distributed SPARQL queries)

[Emiliano Heyns]

On 3/15/07, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:


> OK, so ODS is a packaging facility.
A platform :-)



OK... I think. I'll just go play with it to more get a better feel for it.



> I'm still not entirely clear on the non-commercial use clause that I
> assume is going to be added to the license for VOS. For example, if I
> were to build the next Craigslist and offer it's use for free, where
> would that fall?
It should be no different to using MySQL in this regard.



But MySQL under the GPL does allow commercial use (hence, a.o. all those
ISPs using it). It just doesn't allow you to distribute proprietary apps
with MySQL. The two angles are entirely different. Again, the Linux kernel
serves as an example: you cannot create a derivative proprietary product
from the linux kernel since it is GPL. But you are allowed, without any
financial or license-auditing strings attached, commercial use of the linux
kernel (and MySQL), even when embedded in a GPLed application you intend to
exploit commercially (routers with embedded Linux, for example). And with
MySQL and Linux you are even allowed to build applications that are both
proprietary and intended for commercial use -- as long as it is for
in-company use only.


I'd not be using it commercially, but the visitors might be. And what
> if I decide it's getting too expensive for me to run out of pocket,
> would users be allowed to contribute to the hosting cost? In such a
> context, what exactly does "commercial use" mean?
>
> This might be an interesting case to put before the FSF. At the very
> least it'll help to clearly draft the licensing language.
This isn't a problem.



I'd say it's at least grey-area material, and I'd not want to put anyone in
grey-area situations. Given the scenario above, I would benefit from the
users contributing since they would en passant be paying for hosting my own
site. Splitting hairs, maybe, but I'm just trying to demonstrate the dilemma
I see.

Emile

Re: [Virtuoso-users] Licensing (Was: Virtuoso Open Source Edition and distributed SPARQL queries)

[Kingsley Idehen]

Emiliano Heyns wrote:
On 3/15/07, *Kingsley Idehen* > wrote:



ODS is a Distributed Collaborative Applications (DCA) suite. It
provides
platforms (app. instances) for:
1. Weblogs
2. Wikis
3. Shared Bookmarks
4. WebDAV based File Server (Briefcase)
5. Shared Feeds Subscriptions

Live instances exist at: http://myopenlink.net:8890/ods or
http://demo.openlinksw.com/ods


OK, so ODS is a packaging facility.

A platform :-)


I'm still not entirely clear on the non-commercial use clause that I 
assume is going to be added to the license for VOS. For example, if I 
were to build the next Craigslist and offer it's use for free, where 
would that fall?

It should be no different to using MySQL in this regard.
I'd not be using it commercially, but the visitors might be. And what 
if I decide it's getting too expensive for me to run out of pocket, 
would users be allowed to contribute to the hosting cost? In such a 
context, what exactly does "commercial use" mean?


This might be an interesting case to put before the FSF. AT the very 
least it'll help to clearly draft the licensing language.

This isn't a problem.

Kingsley




Emile


-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV


___
Virtuoso-users mailing list
Virtuoso-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/virtuoso-users
  



--


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

[Virtuoso-users] Licensing (Was: Virtuoso Open Source Edition and distributed SPARQL queries)

[Emiliano Heyns]

On 3/15/07, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:



ODS is a Distributed Collaborative Applications (DCA) suite. It provides
platforms (app. instances) for:
1. Weblogs
2. Wikis
3. Shared Bookmarks
4. WebDAV based File Server (Briefcase)
5. Shared Feeds Subscriptions

Live instances exist at: http://myopenlink.net:8890/ods or
http://demo.openlinksw.com/ods



OK, so ODS is a packaging facility.

I'm still not entirely clear on the non-commercial use clause that I assume
is going to be added to the license for VOS. For example, if I were to build
the next Craigslist and offer it's use for free, where would that fall? I'd
not be using it commercially, but the visitors might be. And what if I
decide it's getting too expensive for me to run out of pocket, would users
be allowed to contribute to the hosting cost? In such a context, what
exactly does "commercial use" mean?

This might be an interesting case to put before the FSF. AT the very least
it'll help to clearly draft the licensing language.

Emile