> Oh stop nitpicking on me, of course when I say "give away" I don't mean
you
> lose it. I thought these basics are understood, if you want to get to that
> level I'm out.
Hey, it's nothing personal, and sorry I was looking like a
nittpicker, I just want to have things crystal clear with this subject, as
many people THINK they understand it but simply DON'T (and confusion arises,
misinterpretations etc. continue).
> An individual contributor will always keep the rights for his
contribution.
> But what's he supposed with this, create a patch file and run it? A
project
> with individual contributors and no copyright assignment means effectively
> that nobody owns anything useful, so nobody has any useful rights except
> those granted by the project's license. (There's the option of getting
> together and changing the license, but in the case of NH that seems to be
a
> futile effort due to the java ancestry.)
the copyright of an individual can cause problems in the long run,
if that person wants to hurt the project or wants to gain $$$ out of it
because users of the work pay for the code in some form. Mind you, anyone
can revoke the usage of his code at any moment.
You're right about the java ancestry that that might be problematic.
Though has anyone asked Red Hat about this? It must also have occurred
previously (as NH is technically a fork of Hibernate with new code) in other
projects which forked: what was done with the copyright?
Strange thought: perhaps the NH team should create an NH foundation
(organisation) and bring code ownership into that
> A patent violation lawsuit could easily target the hoster of the
repository,
> any user (anyone building products on NH or using it in-house), and it
could
> even go as far as picking out main contributors with cease-and-desist
> orders. Software patents are evil, and OSS projects without corporate
> backing are extremely vulnerable to them. Only thing we can do is oppose
> patent laws.
yeah, there's little one can do about this except opposing patent
laws. Luckily in Eu we're safe (for now).
FB
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:nhibernate-
> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:37 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > the licensor doesn't give away anything, that's a core point of
> > understanding copyright law: the owner doesn't give away anything, he
> > only grants rights. That's a fundamental thing. copyleft is meant to
> > break
> > this:
> > 'granting' should be 'giving', as ownership should be a thing of the
> > past. A noble thing, but in practice it doesn't work.
> >
> > It can't be a contract as a contract is not about granting X to
> > party P, a contract is about mutual obligations between the parties
> > involved and what happens if one or more parties don't do what they
> > agreed to do.
> > Also a fundamental part of understanding licenses.
> >
> > Your re-motion code and system is your property and you only
> > grant a small set of rights to others with a small set of conditions.
> > You don't give away anything. Same with NH's LGPL: nothing is given
> > away, only usage rights are granted and modification rights are
> > granted.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > which is irrelevant, really. :) Copyleft is some FSF
> > agenda/politician's view. Copyright law on the other hand is what
> > everyone has to deal with.
> >
> > Back to the topic, it might be a good idea to research who owns
> > which pieces of code in NH so things can get organized (like re-
> > licensing, license changes etc.) more efficiently. OTOH, if no-one
> > knows, NH also can't be brought to court in some patent troll's case
> > like with the greedy Firestar lamers.
> >
> > FB
> >
> > >
> > > > -----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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
