pls frans, read the license. really. you got it totally wrong, and yes, i'm 100% certain.
________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 23:20 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > we were talking about the LGPL, not the GPL in this regard. the > corresponding section in the FAQ is "How does the LGPL work with Java?". > With the GPL, a seperate assembly won't help either. > > as for the AGPL FAQ question: yes, and this defines when you have to publish > the source code of the (modified) AGPL program and everything that links to > it (which can only be AGPL or GPL). it is NOT about derived works! (or > whatever they call that in v3) it IS about derivative work, as that's the legal term for declaring what is violating a license. > if you don't believe me, pls read the license and find the term > "interacting... remotely" in section 13. so you're saying that an app utilizing a webservice which is build using AGPL code is not violating the AGPL? dream on. I agree that that clause is beyond stupid, but that's not the topic ;) FB > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [nhibernate- > [email protected]] on behalf of Ayende Rahien [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 22:03 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html > > > In an object-oriented language such as Java, if I use a class that is GPL'ed > without modifying, and subclass it, in what way does the GPL affect the > larger program? > Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL > affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class. > > > In AGPLv3, what counts as "interacting with [the software] remotely through > a computer network?" > If the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send > responses over a network, then it meets these criteria. Common examples of > programs that would fall into this category include web and mail servers, > interactive web-based applications, and servers for games that are played > online. > > If a program is not expressly designed to interact with a user through a > network, but is being run in an environment where it happens to do so, then > it does not fall into this category. For example, an application is not > required to provide source merely because the user is running it over SSH, > or a remote X session. > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Wenig, Stefan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Deriving a class from an NH class in a different assembly does _not_ > create a derived work. That's just a coincidence in language, it's explained > in the FAQ (something about java) > > Calling a service with either GPL or AGPL code will _not_ affect the > license of the caller. You got that one wrong again, I recommend you read > sections 13 of both GPL and AGPLv3 if you don't take my word for it. > > And copyleft does make sense. You can argue forever wheter it's more > free - that's a matter of definition. But it does have advantages as well as > disadvantages. (IMHO strong copyleft is too restrictive for libraries, but a > valid choice for applications. but that's just me.) > > Cheers, > Stefan > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [nhibernate- > [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 18:56 > > To: [email protected] <mailto:nhibernate- > [email protected]> > > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > > > yes, that's a good workaround. Likely also the route Steve's > customer > > > should take in this: any modifications to NH, extension classes > to NH, > > > place that in an LGPL-ed assembly and the bigger app isn't > affected. > > > > Modifications yes. What are extension classes? Neither derived, > injected > or > > any other classes of your own authorship must be LGPL. Extension > methods > > neither. The key is that the modified LGPL code must still compile > and > work > > as a module. > > Extension classes which derive from a base class from NH, that > could > be a problem, but that's also a small thing: does that 1 class link > make it > a derivative work? > > > > > The web services part is for the AGPL, not the GPL or LGPL, > IIRC. > > > > There are explicit ways to break the links, anything that is > out of > > > process > > > > (cmd line, pipes, etc). > > > > > > Oh! you're right, I forgot about that one, indeed. AGPL (A > stands > for > > > aggressive? ;)) was the insane one. > > > > A stands for Affero, the original inventor. The name was kept so > that - > > guess what - the license condition "Affero GPL 2.0 or higher" would > work > for > > the "GNU Affero GPL v3" ;-) > > > > But you're confusing two things here. The AGPL does not say that > copyleft > > extends over web service boundaries. It only says that if you > provide an > > modified AGPL app "as a service" (in the SaaS sense, not > necessarily SOAP- > > like), you must provide the source code. The GPL alone would not > protect > the > > authors from a third party "stealing" and extending their code and > selling > > it as a service without giving back the code. That makes perfect > sense. > > it's an insane clause, as a big UI app using a service with 2 > GPL > classes behind it doesn't make the app a derivative work per se of > the 2 > classes. BUt alas, I find all copyleft licenses odd: if you want to > give > away your code, use BSD or apache, it's the license which embeds the > spirit > of giving away your work for others, not the rule ridden FSF > playgound. > > > The AGPL is also the preferred license for dual licensing (we do > that). > > any license is suitable for that, you own the code, you decide > how > to license it. You can distribute it under 10 licenses, it's your > work, you > decide. > > > > system links to it... violation? Judges really won't understand > that, > > > most of them can barely handle modern things like keyboards and > mice. > > > ;) > > > > They will use an expert witness. Good luck, still... > > even then... from own experiences as an expert witness for > software > related matter, it takes ages to explain simple things to them, as > they > don't have a beta-mindset and have no clue how a computer works, what > software does etc. Relying on their judgment in cases like this is > IMHO a > fatal mistake. It of course also depends on whether your countries' > system > uses juries (ours doesn't) or not. > > > > > Actually, that scenario is safe. You aren't distributing your > > > changes. > > > > > > if you create the website for a client, you do. Many > consultants > > > don't get this, but creating software for a 3rd party IS > distribution. > > > > No, the GPL permits you to have a contractor build private stuff > for you > -> > > no need to give away the source code. > > true. > > > > > IIRC, the MySQL stance is that if you can use the app with more > than > > > 1 db, > > > > it doesn't apply. > > > > > > Interesting. A new view on the matter. All their lawyers ever > could > > > tell me was 'of course you're in violation in that situation. You > can > > > overcome that by becoming a VAR'... > > > > Here's a lot of room for interpretation. If you use a standard > interface, > > you're not infringing on any concrete implementation's copyright. > If you, > > however, distribute that implementation along with yours, it gets > > complicated. That's why some OSS SW requires you to get other OSS > modules > > from the original source, like Moonlight and the free codecs... > > > > There are other grey areas. E.g., the FSF's GPL FAQ says this: > > "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication > between > > them is limited to invoking the 'main' function of the plug-in with > some > > options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case." > > Hmm. > > Well I asked MySQL about this situation with > DbProviderFactory, and > they told me "you have to GPL your driver", even though my driver is > a piece > of code which uses dbproviderfactory, has no reference to mysql's > ado.net <http://ado.net> > provider and for example also works with devart's mysql direct by > changing a > string in a config file. > > Indeed a grey area! It's sad so much confusion is created by > various > parties in this, it doesn't make it easier for developers to make > well-informed decisions. > > FB >
