Technically you're right. But a license like the GPL has two parties: the licensor who gives away rights, and the licensee who accepts the license by using or modifying the software. That's very much like a contract. Also, like a contract it is subject to a variety of different legal system, the worst of them being Common Law. So all the intricacies of contracts apply, and I'm not convinced that it's so easy to make a much simpler version that actually holds in court like the GPL did. Anyway, understanding the basics of Copyright alone will get you nowhere near understanding the concept of Copyleft.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:05 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > Copyright laws may be simple, but a license is a contract, and > contracts > are > > always complicated under common law. > > license isn't a contract, it's a set of rules. That's different. > A > contract is a legal obligation. How a license applies, how strong the > list > of rules is also differs per country (e.g. reading an Eula and > accepting it > is that equal to signing a contract? in most countries: no). > > > What can I say. I hate the wording, I don't trust the FSF's motives, > but > so > > far these licenses worked exactly as they were designed to do. You > don't > > have to hate proprietary software to accept the notion of copyleft. > > sure they've worked well, and if you're behind the philosophy > that > if you use/change GPL-ed code you have to give your additions/changes > back > to the community, it is the best thing to do. What I hate is the huge > lack > of understanding among the average developer what copyright law is and > how > it works. As if it's only something related to commercial proprietairy > software. > > FB > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [nhibernate- > > [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 23:15 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > > It's only mindboggling because the FSF law firm wants it to be. > Copyright > > law is really simple and straight forward: every 10 year old can > understand > > the law texts of these laws, it's not rocketscience. That the (L)GPL > is so > > complicated is therefore unnecessary and actually kind of disturbing > > (considering the fact they're pushing their agenda of 'property is > evil'.) > > > > FB > > > > > that's because oren was quoting a GPL question instead of an LGPL > > > question before. guys, this is mind-numbing stuff. you need to read > > > carefully, and > > it > > > will still be hard to fully grasp it. it certainly took me some > time... > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: [email protected] [nhibernate- > > > [email protected]] on behalf of Diego Mijelshon > > > [[email protected]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 22:27 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > > > > > > > You got me worried for a second. Fortunately, > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html disagrees :-) > > > > > > Diego > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 17:17, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Same thing > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Diego Mijelshon > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also, what if I implement a NH interface, like > > > IPreInsertEventListener? > > > If the answer is different from the previous one: > why? > > > > > > Diego > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 17:12, Diego Mijelshon > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > How is a "program" defined in this context? > > > > > > That is, if I, for example, subclass Dialect, > > > what > > is > > > affected by the GPL? > > > The project that contains the class deriving > > > from Dialect? > > > The whole solution (I hope not!)? > > > > > > Diego > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 17:03, Ayende Rahien > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: nhibernate- > > > [email protected] [nhibernate- > [email protected]] > > > on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, > > > 2010 > > 18:56 > > > > > > To: nhibernate- > > > [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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
