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 work then you have legal recourse to correct it. I'm concerned about the case where a shim/adapter could be ruled as derivative work and as such its distribution of such could be prohibited under copyright law --- but where the court does not consider the derivative work to include an independent proprietary component needed to actually use the derivative in a meaningful way. In this case, does the GPLv3 create an additional contractual condition for the distribution of the "covered work" in 5(c) that would forbid the distribution of the shim if the required proprietary component is not also licensed compatibly? Or, is 5(c) of the GPL essentially the same as the OSL and limited to only the scope of a derivative work. In this interpretation, you rely upon convincing the court that the entire derived work necessarily includes a component which is required for it's operation. That seems much harder case. > IMO, "appropriate licensing strategy" is far more a > business decision than a legal one. If you wish to develop > an open source community around your product then > GPL v3 + a proprietary license option like MySQL AB > offered is safe enough for most practical purposes. 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 application relys upon specific MySQL functionality. It seems that Rick Moran and many others agree. Please note that my scenario is different, I'm talking about a competitor who would alter/transform/modify our work in order to add proprietary functionality -- not simply use it via its public interface. > Then your scenario of shims and "creative > circumventions" isn't a negative but a positive as it > enhances both your revenue stream and ecosystem. I can't disagree more. This technique, if the GPLv3 offers no defense against it, would permit our competitors to keep their exclusive proprietary licensing stream while actively integrating the benefit that our software would provide without contributing back. The shim being an actual "anti-contribution" since it may confuse users what is free software and what isn't. Best, Clark _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss