On 12/27/11 11:37 AM, "Clark C. Evans" wrote:
>First, thank everyone for their responses. I especially
>enjoy the reading material that Rick Moen has referenced.
>
>On Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> If it's not a derivative work then it's not a derivative
>> work and
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> First, thank everyone for their responses. I especially
> enjoy the reading material that Rick Moen has referenced.
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> If it's not a derivative work then it's not a derivative
>>
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> I'm trying to find an appropriate licensing strategy
>> for our company, and I'm expressly trying to prevent
>> and understand the sort of shims that seem to be
>> standard industry practice. If our work can't be
>> protected from these "
John,
Thank you for your reply.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 11:18 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> > Does the GPL prevent the distribution of M if the
> > work it relies upon, P, isn't compatibly licensed?
>
> Web browsers "rely on" web servers to provide most of their function
> (take it from someone wh
Good answer, John!
Same with me, deceniums agao, at GEISCO (General Electric Information
Services).
But you do *never know* what the future does bring ...
** unless you actively do try to INFLUENCE it (the future of human
beeings) **
Watch me at Thomas.Schneider.Wien, at FaceBook, Skype, e
Rick Moen scripsit:
> MySQL AB's sales staff is reputed to have made claims to customers
> that were insupportable. (Whether that thus constitutes a licensing
> strategy I would not know, but I'm generally not quite that cynical.)
Maybe not, but lying to your customers is definitely a *business*
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
> I think MySQL AB's licensing strategy is offered in this
> forum as an overreach. In particular, Larry Rosen argues
> that there is no derived work when an application simply
> uses MySQL as intended via its public interface, even if
> the appli
First, thank everyone for their responses. I especially
enjoy the reading material that Rick Moen has referenced.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> If it's not a derivative work then it's not a derivative
> work and you should have no heartache. If it is a
> derivative
Clark C. Evans scripsit:
> Does the GPL prevent the distribution of M if the work it relies upon,
> P, isn't compatibly licensed?
Web browsers "rely on" web servers to provide most of their function
(take it from someone who was recently cut off from the Internet for
three whole days), and also o
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011, Rick Moen wrote:
OK, thanks for clarifying. There are several claims in FSF's GPL FAQ
that are rather infamously misleading and doubtful, that being the most
notorious one. When one reads caselaw clarifying the concept of
derivative work, it becomes obvious that the claim s
> I'm trying to find an appropriate licensing strategy
> for our company, and I'm expressly trying to prevent
> and understand the sort of shims that seem to be
> standard industry practice. If our work can't be
> protected from these "creative circumventions" by
> the GPL, then we probably won't
Clark C. Evans scripsit:
> My question involves 3 works, not 2. We have a original
> work O, a "derived" work D (O + a shim/adapter), and an
> independent proprietary work P; where D derived from O
> under copyright law, D relies upon P for its operation,
> and where P has no substitutes. I
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> Precisely. As far as US copyright law, I would suggest starting the
> Apple v. Microsoft (1994) and Gates Rubber v. Bando
Well, my recollection is that CAI v. Altai (FN53: 982 F.2d 693, 23
USPQ2d 1241 2d Cir. 1992) was the more direct precede
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
>
>> What was also on my mind was an informal side chat
>> with an attorney on the stack overflow question [1].
>> I was referred to the GNU FAQ, especially the answer
>> for plug-ins [2] where the ap
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
> What was also on my mind was an informal side chat
> with an attorney on the stack overflow question [1].
> I was referred to the GNU FAQ, especially the answer
> for plug-ins [2] where the applicability of the copyleft
> "depends on how the program
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011, at 01:01 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
>
> > What confuses me and what I'm asking here is why licensing
> > professionals focus on two items that I consider irrelevant:
> > (a) what is the type of linking between D and P?
... (b) is D
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Larry,
>
> You might even be right, but at the moment there are many attorneys less
> sanguine than you on this issue, and much less emotional.
>
> The prudent consultant advises his customers on how to stay far away from
> these issues, sinc
: [License-discuss] GPL and proprietary WebAPIs
Larry,
You might even be right, but at the moment there are many attorneys less
sanguine than you on this issue, and much less emotional.
The prudent consultant advises his customers on how to stay far away from
these issues, since there is no
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
> What confuses me and what I'm asking here is why licensing
> professionals focus on two items that I consider irrelevant:
> (a) what is the type of linking between D and P?
Please name one such licensing professional (who is not an FSF
spokesman).
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Ben Tilly wrote:
> The real question is not what the GPLv3 does or
> does not allow, it is what copyright does or does
> not allow. If a work is derived under copyright
> law from a GPLed piece of work, then it must be GPLed.
> If a work is *not* derived und
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
> Your characterization is wholly inaccurate, although
> I could see how you might arrive at this conclusion.
I stated an explicitly personal perspective (that I have no interest in
advising querents about how closely to shave the requirements of
cop
The real question is not what the GPLv3 does or does not allow, it is
what copyright does or does not allow. If a work is derived under
copyright law from a GPLed piece of work, then it must be GPLed. If a
work is *not* derived under copyright law from a GPLed piece of work,
the GPL is going to h
Rick,
My question is rather straight-forward. Does the GPLv3
permit the distribution of derived works that require
an independent and non-free work for its operation [1].
I was under the impression that the Corresponding Source
("all the source code needed to... run the object code")
and 5c ("the
Larry,
You might even be right, but at the moment there are many attorneys less
sanguine than you on this issue, and /much/ less emotional.
The prudent consultant advises his customers on how to stay /far/ away
from these issues, since there is no technical reason they can't do so.
The prude
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 01:34 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> You know, Clark: Speaking for myself, I have no interest
> in advising querents about how closely they can lawfully
> skirt the requirements of copyleft licences, or how they
> can creatively circumvent those requirements entirely, in
> ord
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011, at 02:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Linking GPL software to proprietary software is legal as
> long as one doesn't create a derivative work.
Thank you for the helpful response. The hard part then is
knowing when a derivative work would be formed, or, perhaps
more difficult
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 04:50:14PM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:38:04AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thus in general I think one is generally bett
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 04:50:14PM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:38:04AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
> >>
> >> Thus in general I think one is generally better off talking with
> >> upstream projects and trying to ge
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:38:04AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>> Thus in general I think one is generally better off talking with
>> upstream projects and trying to get them on board.
>
> Take the most restrictive reasonable interpretation
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
> You are being unnecessarily argumentative.
Alas, you have missed the central thrust of what I said. I was attempting
to account for the general lack of interest in assisting analysing your
problem as defined -- speaking for myself, but I suspect
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> And with regard to this irrational fear of the reach of the GPL
> regarding functional linking that is but one minor factor in a complex
> derivative work analysis, what is the risk that some court will force
> me to disclose my *copyright-independent* crown jewel propri
age-
> From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-
> boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 9:49 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] GPL and proprietary WebAPIs
>
> On
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:38:04AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> Thus in general I think one is generally better off talking with
> upstream projects and trying to get them on board.
Take the most restrictive reasonable interpretation of both if you want
to play it safe. After all, a change in
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> Good for you (I mean that). As I say in the LedgerSMB project we hold
> API's (however invoked) to be freely usable with the minor exception
> that inheritance probably crosses the line into derivative works land
> (because once inheritance is muc
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Rick Moen wrote:
>> You know, Clark: Speaking for myself, I have no interest in advising
>> querents about how closely they can lawfully skirt the requirements of
>> copyleft licences, or how they can creatively circumvent those
>> requirem
Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):
> Might be, but it is not unanimous. Indeed, I'm glad to advise companies how
> to circumvent the *purported* and *frequently misunderstood* requirements of
> the GPL.
Two-hour minimum at professional rates, I hope.
I'm certainly not calling anything
cember 22, 2011 1:35 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] GPL and proprietary WebAPIs
>
> Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
>
> > I found a tangible example of what I'm referring to, complete with
> > wonderful v
Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):
> I found a tangible example of what I'm referring to, complete with
> wonderful visuals. Chris Kleisath at Sybase describes how they
> circumvent the GPL license by using intermediate APIs to link
> proprietary functionality with GPL licensed works.
Chris Travers scripsit:
> In fact, if we go that route, why couldn't Microsoft have just revoked
> Netscape's license to distribute Windows software and killed the
> competition that way?
IANAL, but that strikes me as something that would set them up for a
lawsuit by Netscape, being unambiguous e
I found a tangible example of what I'm referring to, complete with
wonderful visuals. Chris Kleisath at Sybase describes how they
circumvent the GPL license by using intermediate APIs to link
proprietary functionality with GPL licensed works. Is Chris correct?
For GPLv2? For GPLv3?
http://iabl
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 03:01 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
| > Let's suppose that I've working on a Ledger++ program
| > which is a proprietary version of your Ledger SMB that
| > adds awesome multi-state Payroll and Asset Depreciation
| > features. Only rather than including these features
| > in yo
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:26 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Chris Travers scripsit:
>
>> Now, if linking implies derivation, then isn't the software (and by
>> extension *all* Windows software) derivative of Windows? If that's the
>> case then doesn't every developer of Windows software need Microsoft'
Chris Travers scripsit:
> Now, if linking implies derivation, then isn't the software (and by
> extension *all* Windows software) derivative of Windows? If that's the
> case then doesn't every developer of Windows software need Microsoft's
> permission to distribute such software? I don't think
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 03:30 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
>> In general, good will from the projects at issue is a factor that
>> should not be underestimated and being a good citizen means ideally
>> making sure they are ok with it.
>
> Absol
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 03:30 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> In general, good will from the projects at issue is a factor that
> should not be underestimated and being a good citizen means ideally
> making sure they are ok with it.
Absolutely. If people consider you to be behaving fairly,
they ar
First, IANAL. In non-hypotheticals, you should talk to one as well as
the relevant open source project leadership committees. Also the GPL
v2 and the GPL v3 may be slightly different here because the GPL v3
moves away from being reliant on derivative works definitions in some
important ways. In
I have a broad question about various interpretations
of the GPL with regard to WebAPIs. Let me start with
an example scenario.
1. Suppose that Super Visual is a clever GPL
licensed data visualization program (released by
Vendor A).
2. Now suppose that there is a closed-source, but
free to redis
47 matches
Mail list logo
