A related question: We do not use neither Ingres nor Mysql: we distribute the DbLinq.dll, the DbLinq.SqlServer.dll and the DbLinq.Oracle.dll in our application setups.
AFAIK we have no licencing issue... am I right? Giacomo On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Jens Jacobsen <[email protected]>wrote: > > re: "If it only works with Oracle, and you only distribute the Oracle > portion of DbLinq, then what? Everything is fine?" > > Generally speaking "Yes", if you modify DbLinq so that all references > to the Ingres and MySQL provider are removed, then you are no longer > touching the GPL. > > If you never distribute you app but only use it "in house" then you > are also fine even if you do not modify DbLinq (you can not get in > trouble no matter how much you use GPL code). > > BUT........ > > There are situations where companies has been split up or parts sold > off, suddenly in house developed applications are now distributed and > hence under the GPL distribution requirements again. > So it is not clear cut for any given IT department if DbLinq is ok to > use even in house. The standard rule is "Don't use GPL code in your > development unless you are prepared to distribute your source code" > > re: " If your software allows 3rd party plugins, licensing issues > would be the problem of the 3rd party" > > There are only a few cases where the developer has been held > responsible for what 3rd party developers has been doing with their > code. > So unless you step on the toes of Apple or the US Government then you > will probably be ok :-) > > re: "You would not be able to license the plugin as GPL since the main > program isn't" > > This is from the GPL FAQ right? This explanation is established to > deter sneaky developers from developing applications that has a > proprietary layer but will only work with a GPL licensed plug in. For > example if the DAL layer in your (proprietary) application is > plugable, and one such plug in you provide is a "MySQL plug in" > licensed under the GPL (it might be the only one or it might not) , > then you have tried to circumvent the GPL according to the FAQ (that > represents the interpretation of the FSF. ie. this is what the FSF > thinks the words in the GPL license means). > > re: "but would it also prevent (legal) in-house development of such > plugin?" > > The GPL only covers distribution of software so this entirely depends > on your in-house rules how "legal" it is. If you have a rule that says > "don't touch the GPL" and you ignore this, you might get fired. > However the company is for sure not doing something illegal in > relation to the GPL as long as they don't distribute, but it might be > illegal in relation to the original software (depending on the EULA > of the original software and other things). > > Just to clear a few tings up: > > 1. If you do not distribute software, you do not need to license your > code at all. > 2. Licenses are for distribution. > 3. The GPL is one such license that covers distribution of software. > 4. According to the FSF FAQ you cannot create an application that is > designed to load a "specific" GPL "Plug in" without licensing the > application itself under the GPL. > 5. DbLinq is such an application that is designed to load the GPL > licensed Ingres and MySQL data providers and therefore in its current > form cannot be distributed outside of the GPL. > 6. The MySQL license exception is worth nothing because it does not > give you any additional distribution rights that you did not already > have under the GPL, and it does not remove any of the obligations that > you have under the GPL either. > > Regards > Jens > > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Sami M. Kallio<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Jens Jacobsen" <[email protected]> > >> > >> Finally the question of is it legal to redistribute an unmodified > >> version of DbLinq if your application is not designed to work with > >> MySQL or Ingres but will in fact only work with Oracle (or something > >> not GPL). > > > > If it only works with Oracle, and you only distribute the Oracle portion > of > > DbLinq, then what? Everything is fine? > > > > DbLinq.dll -> Data -> Linq -> SqlClient, remove other providers and leave > > OracleProvider.cs. In you software package, distribute DbLinq. Oracle.dll > > and DbLinq.dll, nothing else. Would this do the trick? You might not even > > have to remove anything from DbLinq.dll since it doesn't seem to link > > against anything GPL but might as well to be safe. > > > > If your software allows 3rd party plugins, licensing issues would be the > > problem of the 3rd party. You would not be able to license the plugin as > GPL > > since the main program isn't, but would it also prevent (legal) in-house > > development of such plugin? > > > > - Sami > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DbLinq" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dblinq?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
