Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On 04/09/2011 04:10 PM, Omer Zak wrote: IANAL either. But what you are looking for is, in principle, dual licensing. The providers of MySQL and Qt follow the same model. Their software libraries are available under either GPL (with all the restrictions it entails) or under a proprietary license. Nitpick: In addition to GPL, Qt is LGPL (v2.1) licensed since 2009. When a client of yours gets your software under proprietary license, you are free to impose whichever terms you want upon them, including terms under which they are allowed to transfer the software to third parties. --- Omer Cheers -- Meir On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 15:50 +0300, Aviad Mandel wrote: Hi list, I know you're not lawyers, but I though you could help me with a GPL issue. I'm writing a function library in C which I want to sell licenses for, targeting a specialized industry. To make my entry point better, I plan to release it under GPL (as opposed to LGPL) so that potential users can evaluate it properly before making a decision. My target industry is far far away from FOSS, so I'm pretty sure that they won't release their own code under GPL in order to adopt mine free (as in beer). So as long as I make sure I own all copyrights, will this work legally? Two main questions: (1) Is GPL giving me the enough protection? (2) Will GPL allow a company which hasn't bought a non-GPL license enough freedom to evaluate the library? What makes this slightly complicated, is what happens when company X decides to take my library and integrate it into their proprietary software for evaluation. Even for their internal copies, they can't badge the whole package as GPL, because they don't necessarily own the rights to all components, and may not even have all sources. So let's look at the case where the company has just linked my GPL'ed library with their proprietary source codes + proprietary libraries for which the company only has as binaries. Now person X wants to send a copy of the software's binary (my library included) to person Y, say over email. Under what conditions is it legal? If person Y works at the same company? For the same company (outsourcing)? Has access to everything necessary to build the software, so that person Y could in theory build the binary from software owned by the company + the library under GPL? ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Linux has won!
A week ago I wrote here my belief that On Sun, Apr 03, 2011, Nadav Har'El wrote about Linux has won!: .. We're so used to thinking that Linux is a niche OS that only 1% of the people use at home, that we (or at least I) missed the fact that this changed! Over the last few years, suddenly that is no longer true: Today there are probably more copies of Linux than Windows running in people's homes! .. Interestingly, exactly two days later, someone from the Linux Foundation made a very similar observation - that Linux has won, and Microsoft is no longer relevant - except in one rather small segment of the market (the traditional desktop market): http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/040511-linux-vs-microsoft.html?page=1 While this guy thinks that Linux has beaten Microsoft, he does think it still has a significant rival in Apple. I tend to disagree - I believe that in a decade, Apple will be just as irrelevant as Microsoft, if not more. -- Nadav Har'El|Sunday, Apr 10 2011, 6 Nisan 5771 n...@math.technion.ac.il |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The human mind is like a parachute - it http://nadav.harel.org.il |functions better when it is open. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
Thanks for your answers. But I feel we're not on the same page. This demonstrates it best: I don't know what your library is about, but have you considered other uses your library might have? E.g., what if Google, Facebook, or some other company which builds a million machines for its own use, decides that it is useful and uses it? As I've already mentioned, the whole thing is in the embedded software domain. It seems like you're all thinking about software running on desktops and servers, but what about DVDs, TV sets, cameras, microwave ovens or whatever electronic device you could think of? How about a software library that understands speech, to be run on a microwave oven? The potential customer wants to try it on their real microwave, and have it running on a few real kitchens just to learn that speech from the TV set turns in on accidentally. Or something. Even if a company making microwaves could, in theory, release the other software running on the machine (the cooking timer? Hitec.) they will buy a license to get the issue off their minds. That's the way it usually works. So there a are a few differences: (1) The software's goal is distribution in a product, burned on the flash memory of some e.g. microwave oven. So I couldn't care less how many times they use it in-house. (2) The industry has to be much more careful with licensing, because once the product has left the factory, you can't submit a patch. An electronic company will buy a license if there's any doubt, as opposed to a server farm, which may remove the problematic software if necessary. (3) There is no dynamic linking, because there's a simple OS or none at all on those small processors. I hope this clarifies why GPL's limitation of distribution is so appealing as an evaluation license: It stops the evaluation users exactly at the point where they want to really use the software, in embedded terms. And if I'm not wrong about the whole idea, a well-polished license like GPLv3 is by far better than anything I can come up with, with or without ten lawyers, since it's written based upon experience with legal issues worldwide, which I will never be able to do. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
2011/4/10 Aviad Mandel aviad.man...@gmail.com I hope this clarifies why GPL's limitation of distribution is so appealing as an evaluation license: It stops the evaluation users exactly at the point where they want to really use the software, in embedded terms. And if I'm not wrong about the whole idea, a well-polished license like GPLv3 is by far better than anything I can come up with, with or without ten lawyers, since it's written based upon experience with legal issues worldwide, which I will never be able to do. I don't know about the legal aspects and I might not know much about the industry you are targeting but at some my clients there is a strict no GPL policy while at others the use of open source (especially GPL) requires the approval of the legal department which is complex. Most developers and their managers try to avoid it which effectively means using new open source code is difficult. Even if they are already using a lot of open source tools and code. IMHO in most of these cases the GPL license will be a deterrence from even trying the thing. Your industry might be different. regards Gabor http://szabgab.com/ ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011, Aviad Mandel wrote about Re: GPL as an evaluation license: How about a software library that understands speech, to be run on a microwave oven? The potential customer wants to try it on their real microwave, and have it running on a few real kitchens just to learn that speech from the TV set turns in on accidentally. Or something. What if Google (just a silly hypothetical example) takes that library and uses it on their servers, to understand spoken commands sent over the network by their users? Remember that with GPL software, the users have a right to not just use your software as-is, but can also modify it and/or extract the parts which are relevant to their own use-case. As I said, I don't know what your actual intended use case is, but once you release something in the GPL, people might legally use it for other purposes than what you originally intended. I'm not saying it's a huge problem - I just said it's something you should consider before going with the GPL. I hope this clarifies why GPL's limitation of distribution is so appealing as an evaluation license: It stops the evaluation users exactly at the point where they want to really use the software, in embedded terms. And if I'm not wrong about the whole idea, a well-polished license like GPLv3 is by far better than anything I can come up with, with or without ten lawyers, since it's written based upon experience with legal issues worldwide, which I will never be able to do. Perhaps. On the other hand, the 10 lawyers who wrote the GPL had a completely different goal in mind than your goal - so while it may perfectly protect software freedom (the GPL's goal), it might less perfectly protect your business interests as you see them. That being said, I have released software under the GPL (e.g., hspell), so I'm definitely not against it ;-) -- Nadav Har'El|Sunday, Apr 10 2011, 6 Nisan 5771 n...@math.technion.ac.il |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Why are you looking down here? The joke http://nadav.harel.org.il |is above! ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Nadav Har'El n...@math.technion.ac.ilwrote: What if Google (just a silly hypothetical example) takes that library and uses it on their servers, to understand spoken commands sent over the network by their users? Then I'll proudly add a huge banner on the project page saying adopted by Google. That's really the last thing I worry about. Unfortunately, a much more realistic scenario is that the library will not be adopted by anyone serious. Or that I've missed something here, and potential target customers will feel comfortable (as opposed to be able to legally) to use the software without the unGPL license. That why I'm asking for your advice. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:45:20PM +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote: 2011/4/10 Aviad Mandel aviad.man...@gmail.com I hope this clarifies why GPL's limitation of distribution is so appealing as an evaluation license: It stops the evaluation users exactly at the point where they want to really use the software, in embedded terms. And if I'm not wrong about the whole idea, a well-polished license like GPLv3 is by far better than anything I can come up with, with or without ten lawyers, since it's written based upon experience with legal issues worldwide, which I will never be able to do. I don't know about the legal aspects and I might not know much about the industry you are targeting but at some my clients there is a strict no GPL policy while at others the use of open source (especially GPL) requires the approval of the legal department which is complex. The alternative is not Apache or whatever. The alternative is a complex propritary license. Which has to go through the legal department anyway. Most developers and their managers try to avoid it which effectively means using new open source code is difficult. Even if they are already using a lot of open source tools and code. IMHO in most of these cases the GPL license will be a deterrence from even trying the thing. But this is when the GPL is used in production. Not for evaluation. Oh, and there are certainly other industries: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/ -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best tzaf...@debian.org|| friend ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
[HAIFUX LECTURE] The story of Alice and Bob - the I/O requests (part III) by Guy Keren
On Monday, April 11th (TOMORROW), at 18:30, Haifux will gather to hear Guy Keren talk about The story of Alice and Bob - the I/O requests (part III and last) Abstract In this story, we'll follow the life story of alice - a file-systemized I/O request, and bob - a raw-device I/O request, from their birth, until they reach heaven (the disk or the USB camera or...). In addition, we will cover some system parameters that affect I/O requests, the buffer cache, disk I/O schedulers and tools used to track and count I/O (including - why is process-based I/O accounting so tricky). Slides are available for view and download at http://haifux.org/lectures/254/ We meet in Taub (CS Faculty) building, room 6. For instructions see: http://www.haifux.org/where.html Attendance is free, and you are all invited! Future Haifux talks include: 2/5/2011 vIOMMU: Efficient IOMMU Emulation by Nadav Amit 30/5/2011 How to Spread Knowledge Throughout the World While Wearing Only Your Slippers by Tomer Ashur. 13/6/2011 SSD fundamentals by Amit Berman We are always interested in hearing your talks and ideas. If you wish to give a talk, hold a discussion, or just plan some event haifux might be interested in, please contact us at webmas...@haifux.org -- Web: http://www.billauer.co.il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Tzafrir Cohen tzaf...@cohens.org.ilwrote: I don't know about the legal aspects and I might not know much about the industry you are targeting but at some my clients there is a strict no GPL policy while at others the use of open source (especially GPL) requires the approval of the legal department which is complex. The alternative is not Apache or whatever. The alternative is a complex propritary license. Which has to go through the legal department anyway. In many cases the alternative is to write the thing in-house in a less reusable way, without unit-test but with more bugs. Most developers and their managers try to avoid it which effectively means using new open source code is difficult. Even if they are already using a lot of open source tools and code. IMHO in most of these cases the GPL license will be a deterrence from even trying the thing. But this is when the GPL is used in production. Not for evaluation. So the developer will say: OK I know the company does not want me to use GPL code so let me just check it out to see if it would work even though though I was told they cannot use it. Oh, and there are certainly other industries: Luckily there are already Gabor -- Gabor Szabo http://szabgab.com/ ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Tzafrir Cohen tzaf...@cohens.org.ilwrote: IMHO in most of these cases the GPL license will be a deterrence from even trying the thing. But this is when the GPL is used in production. Not for evaluation. I think this last statement is wrong. On top of the distribution problem IP-conscious companies also worry about contamination. So GPL as an evaluation license carries this additional concern. Overall, I'd say GPL has a larger chilling factor than a decent (and short) proprietary license. Another point that I mentioned in an earlier post but not sure if it registered. Consider the following hypothetical case. Vendor A (fits this case, huh) provides a library to Business B for evaluation, under GPL. Business B actually needs the library to work with their proprietary code and with code from Consultant C. Therefore, Consultant C's verdict is essential for evaluation. GPL has no notion of evaluation (or, indeed, of any specific purpose). From GPL's point of view, Consultant C is a 3rd party, therefore, if Business B gives Consultant C a copy of A's library (maybe together with their own stuff) it constitutes distribution. Consultant C, on the other hand, is an independent entity as retains the rights for the stuff that he creates. Altogether, this situation leads (or may lead) to the following: * If B delivers their code linked to A's library to C then they may have to GPL their stuff. This may not be what they want. * If C gives his code to B, linked to library A, even as a test, he may need to GPL his code. This may not be what he wants. * Unlike B, Mr. C may be in a position to compete directly with Mr. A. Mr. A may not want to give his code to Mr. C without restrictions. GPL has no mechanism that takes the B-C and C-A relationships into account, it is all about A-B. All in all, it looks to me, without going into further detail, that a license that will not have some of the restrictions/freedoms of GPL, but will have some of the restrictions/freedoms relevant to evaluation (scope, duration, NDA-safety, etc.) will be more appropriate. AFAIK, there is no mechanism in GPL that allows specifying something like evaluation or limited distribution, and that's a key point. If a dual license fits the purpose then the library can be posted on some ftp site for *everybody* to download and use under GPL, and support/enhancements/etc. may be provided under a different license. There are numerous examples - some have been mentioned here. However, if the two versions become different then a potential customer will have to be satisfied by evaluating the GPL version rather than the version they will ultimately pay for. If this is not OK then there may be no need for a GPL version at all... -- Oleg Goldshmidt | p...@goldshmidt.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 03:02:06PM +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Tzafrir Cohen tzaf...@cohens.org.ilwrote: I don't know about the legal aspects and I might not know much about the industry you are targeting but at some my clients there is a strict no GPL policy while at others the use of open source (especially GPL) requires the approval of the legal department which is complex. The alternative is not Apache or whatever. The alternative is a complex propritary license. Which has to go through the legal department anyway. In many cases the alternative is to write the thing in-house in a less reusable way, without unit-test but with more bugs. You're not reading things in context. Most developers and their managers try to avoid it which effectively means using new open source code is difficult. Even if they are already using a lot of open source tools and code. IMHO in most of these cases the GPL license will be a deterrence from even trying the thing. But this is when the GPL is used in production. Not for evaluation. So the developer will say: OK I know the company does not want me to use GPL code so let me just check it out to see if it would work even though though I was told they cannot use it. Which is funny, as a typical evaluation license permits you far less than the GPL and is far less understood than it. For a typical example see, well... Well, you typically can't even find the license on-line. -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best tzaf...@debian.org|| friend ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 03:25:46PM +0300, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Tzafrir Cohen tzaf...@cohens.org.ilwrote: IMHO in most of these cases the GPL license will be a deterrence from even trying the thing. But this is when the GPL is used in production. Not for evaluation. I think this last statement is wrong. On top of the distribution problem IP-conscious companies also worry about contamination. So GPL as an evaluation license carries this additional concern. Overall, I'd say GPL has a larger chilling factor than a decent (and short) proprietary license. The GPL (even V3) is shorter than most propritary licenses I've seen. Contamination is a potential issue with any other code. Suppose you got some code from Oracle under the terms of the OLLE (Oracle License for Library Evaluation), played with it a bit, and figured it is junk you shouldn't use. You team went on to use your own code instead. A year later Oracle sues your company (over an unrelated issue). Both the Oracle lawyers and your company's lawyers look for problematic spots. So, have you been contamination with Oracle-copyrighted code? Are you licensed to use it? -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best tzaf...@debian.org|| friend ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Tzafrir Cohen tzaf...@cohens.org.ilwrote: Suppose you got some code from Oracle under the terms of the OLLE (Oracle License for Library Evaluation), played with it a bit, and figured it is junk you shouldn't use. You team went on to use your own code instead. A year later Oracle sues your company (over an unrelated issue). Both the Oracle lawyers and your company's lawyers look for problematic spots. So, have you been contamination with Oracle-copyrighted code? Are you licensed to use it? Is this OLLE a real license or a hypothetical example of yours? I am no expert, but AFAIK Oracle do not provide source code, typically, and even restrict testing/evaluation/prototyping using their libraries in conjunction with GPL or other Open Source SW: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/testcontent/standard-license-088383.html The typical evaluation case is here is a library and the API documentation, sorry, no source code ever. Fewer contamination issues result. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | p...@goldshmidt.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
2011/4/10 Oleg Goldshmidt p...@goldshmidt.org Another point that I mentioned in an earlier post but not sure if it registered. Consider the following hypothetical case. Vendor A (fits this case, huh) provides a library to Business B for evaluation, under GPL. Business B actually needs the library to work with their proprietary code and with code from Consultant C. Therefore, Consultant C's verdict is essential for evaluation. I actually did register that remark, and wondered why my original workaround for this doesn't apply. Let me take this to the extreme: Suppose that Business B wants Consultant C's opinion with Vendor A's GPLed library but without showing Mr. C any of Business B's sources. And it all has to be statically linked. Easy: Compile all Business B's sources into object files (.o, you know) but don't link. Send Mr. C the objects and sources Vendor A supplied. Tell Mr. C to compile and link the whole package (scripts, LiveDVDs whatever is needed to make this painless). Now Consultant C has a legal binary. But even this scenario isn't a threat, if the target market is microwave ovens one talks to. Unless someone puts a C compiler + linker on the oven's processor, to compile the code on its first use... Corollary question: Given this situation, why should the binary distribution be disallowed to anyone having compilation / linking abilities? It's a bit like asking if I'm allowed to run a cracked version of software for which I have bought a license. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Aviad Mandel aviad.man...@gmail.com wrote: Easy: Compile all Business B's sources into object files (.o, you know) but don't link. Send Mr. C the objects and sources Vendor A supplied. Tell Mr. C to compile and link the whole package (scripts, LiveDVDs whatever is needed to make this painless). Now Consultant C has a legal binary. This looks to me (reminder: IANAL) as a rather simplistic attempt to circumvent GPL. I cannot believe that this trick is legal. See also below. But even this scenario isn't a threat, if the target market is microwave ovens one talks to. Unless someone puts a C compiler + linker on the oven's processor, to compile the code on its first use... It's enough that there is a compiler and a linker on the development station. Corollary question: Given this situation, why should the binary distribution be disallowed to anyone having compilation / linking abilities? It's a bit like asking if I'm allowed to run a cracked version of software for which I have bought a license. The notion of a derivative work is related to copyright, it does not depend on whether you distribute the pieces separately or not, or on who does the linking. It looks to me that you suggest that Business B gives its code to a rd party, and points the 3rd party to your website and says, you download this GPL library from Mr. A, and you link. Since you didn't get the GPL part from me and you do not convey the result, no one is in violation and we can keep our code closed. Typically, however, the B part will contain pieces that use the A library - without those pieces the library will not be needed. The rest is a legal (copyright) question: does this make B a derivative work? Suppose Business B is in microwave oven business, and you, Vendor A, provide software that allows microwave oven to be controlled by voice commands. In your scenario, Business B tells a 3rd party, You will get a voice-controlled microwave if you take B.o and link it with A.a. I suspect that a good argument can be made in court that B.o is a derivative work under the circumstances and must be GPLed. Incidentally, I mix in GPL v2 notions here. The language of GPL v3 is substantially different from v2 (propagate and convey rather than distribute, no explicit notion of derivative work, etc.). I never studied v3 at the same level of detail as v2. I implicitly rely on the assumption that the spirit is the same or very similar, and that v3 is not likely to be more permissive than v2. However, you've been warned. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | p...@goldshmidt.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt p...@goldshmidt.org wrote: This looks to me (reminder: IANAL) as a rather simplistic attempt to circumvent GPL. I cannot believe that this trick is legal. I'm likewise skeptic. But if this is illegal, and I don't understand why, then there's still an important lesson to learn. Typically, however, the B part will contain pieces that use the A library - without those pieces the library will not be needed. The rest is a legal (copyright) question: does this make B a derivative work? My question is: Does it matter? Business B owns the B part, so it doesn't need any permission to distribute the code. No copyright infringement, no need for license. In the wildest scenario, you could claim that the names of the API functions are copyrighted. So make a wrapper, release it under GPL. Now you own the rights for the new API function names as well. Part A can be distributed anyhow as sources, so there's no problem here either. Nobody could claim that there's a problem distributing GPLed sources alongside with anything. So where's the catch? Can a compilation be seen as a copyright infringement? After all, strings from the sources are copied to the binary, for example. Or is there any EULA-style restriction I'm not aware of? The binary must not be copied further of course, but who cares at this point? ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
Aviad, i think that when you delve into such legal questions - you are reaching the limit of what you would want to do, as a business. in other words, either use the GPL and hope business B knows what to do, or don't use the GPL to avoid having these legal questions to answer. you should note that vendor B has different lawyers then vendor A - and they may answer the same question differently. i have seen lawyers that said don't touch anything that is GPL, period, and that said don't touch anything that is *GPL (i.e. GPL, LGPL), period. specifically, i think your last claim is a confusion between derived work and linked binaries. in other words - this thing works if vendor's A code is under LGPL (it's specifically described in the LGPL), but does not work if vendor's A code is under GPL. --guy On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:45 +0300, Aviad Mandel wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt p...@goldshmidt.org wrote: This looks to me (reminder: IANAL) as a rather simplistic attempt to circumvent GPL. I cannot believe that this trick is legal. I'm likewise skeptic. But if this is illegal, and I don't understand why, then there's still an important lesson to learn. Typically, however, the B part will contain pieces that use the A library - without those pieces the library will not be needed. The rest is a legal (copyright) question: does this make B a derivative work? My question is: Does it matter? Business B owns the B part, so it doesn't need any permission to distribute the code. No copyright infringement, no need for license. In the wildest scenario, you could claim that the names of the API functions are copyrighted. So make a wrapper, release it under GPL. Now you own the rights for the new API function names as well. Part A can be distributed anyhow as sources, so there's no problem here either. Nobody could claim that there's a problem distributing GPLed sources alongside with anything. So where's the catch? Can a compilation be seen as a copyright infringement? After all, strings from the sources are copied to the binary, for example. Or is there any EULA-style restriction I'm not aware of? The binary must not be copied further of course, but who cares at this point? ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: GPL as an evaluation license
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Aviad Mandel aviad.man...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt p...@goldshmidt.org wrote: This looks to me (reminder: IANAL) as a rather simplistic attempt to circumvent GPL. I cannot believe that this trick is legal. I'm likewise skeptic. But if this is illegal, and I don't understand why, then there's still an important lesson to learn. The lesson is that you focus on technical tricks in the (futile) hope of avoiding the intellectual property question. You have a GPLed library A and proprietary code B. Is B+A a derivative work of A or not? No amount of technical trickery (writing a wrapper for the GPLed API, distributing B and A separately and asking the customer to o the linking, whatever) should be enough to change the answer from yes to no (barring a serious legal hole in GPL). Typically, however, the B part will contain pieces that use the A library - without those pieces the library will not be needed. The rest is a legal (copyright) question: does this make B a derivative work? My question is: Does it matter? Business B owns the B part, so it doesn't need any permission to distribute the code. Yes, it does, if B is a derivative of A, e.g., will not work without A. In my earlier example, business B will not need A's permission to sell a microwave oven (that will not need A), but will need such permission to sell a voice-controlled oven that uses A to implement voice control functionality. Assuming the whole thing is a single piece (as it is likely to be in your case) the whole of B+A must be under GPL. B are free to use some other voice control library with a more permissive license, or forget about voice control - in both cases they can keep their code closed. But the cannot base the product on A and avoid GPL. Part A can be distributed anyhow as sources, so there's no problem here either. Nobody could claim that there's a problem distributing GPLed sources alongside with anything. As a mere aggregation (both on the same CD), no, as a single piece of work that requires A, yes. So where's the catch? Can a compilation be seen as a copyright infringement? No, only distribution (conveyance in v3), which is quite well defined, but you need to apply a serious effort to parse it. As Guy wrote, you are on shaky ground. I think you have been given enough food for thought that shows that there are issues. How important these issues are is out of your control - it is up to your customers to decide. GPL is a complicated license in practice, and I strongly suggest that you stop thinking in terms of GPL for evaluation - it simply does not accommodate the notion of a specific/limited purpose or scope. If you want to think in terms of a dual license then it's a different matter, and you will need to decide how it fits your business model. Again as Guy wrote, the Vendor A - Business B - Consultant C triangle will have many fewer problems if you choose LGPL rather than GPL. The problem that remains (among those already mentioned - there may be others) in this case is A's possible problem with Mr. C who may use A's code to directly compete with A. But Mr. A may decide it is OK, even though he won't necessarily know in advance who Mr. C is. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | p...@goldshmidt.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
A little GPL riddle (was: GPL as an evaluation license)
For the sake of fairness, I'll say that the questions I had about my own little venture are answered, thank you all. But for pure curiosity, I'm left wondering how effective GPL really is. Let's leave the microwave for a second, and think about a proprietary web software browser, for a desktop, using a lot of GPLed code, and should remain closed source. The trick is like this: The installation program generates the executables by compiling the GPLed sources (Gentoo style) and linking them with the proprietary object code. What you get is a binary nobody is allowed to copy, but it's already on the hard disk ready for running. Don't tell me not to do this. I'm not going to. But can anyone tell why this would be illegal? Where's the moment something illegal happens? And please, I know that the mixed binary is derived work and must be distributed further under the same license. But the thing is that nobody really wants to distribute it, so what's the problem? ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: A little GPL riddle (was: GPL as an evaluation license)
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Aviad Mandel aviad.man...@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of fairness, I'll say that the questions I had about my own little venture are answered, thank you all. But for pure curiosity, I'm left wondering how effective GPL really is. Let's leave the microwave for a second, and think about a proprietary web software browser, for a desktop, using a lot of GPLed code, and should remain closed source. The trick is like this: The installation program generates the executables by compiling the GPLed sources (Gentoo style) and linking them with the proprietary object code. What you get is a binary nobody is allowed to copy, but it's already on the hard disk ready for running. Don't tell me not to do this. I'm not going to. But can anyone tell why this would be illegal? Where's the moment something illegal happens? And please, I know that the mixed binary is derived work and must be distributed further under the same license. But the thing is that nobody really wants to distribute it, so what's the problem? Someone gave you, i.e., conveyed, distributed, that object code whose only purpose is to create the browser when linked to some GPLed code. Therefore this object code is derivative work of the GPL code. Therefore if it is not GPLed the aforementioned someone is in violation of GPL. A user of such a browser who wants to have a look at or modify the browser will have a petty good case. IANAL. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | p...@goldshmidt.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: A little GPL riddle (was: GPL as an evaluation license)
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Oleg Goldshmidt p...@goldshmidt.org wrote: Someone gave you, i.e., conveyed, distributed, that object code whose only purpose is to create the browser when linked to some GPLed code. Therefore this object code is derivative work of the GPL code. Therefore if it is not GPLed the aforementioned someone is in violation of GPL. A user of such a browser who wants to have a look at or modify the browser will have a petty good case. Purpose? Where does the GPL say anything about purpose? Besides, I'm looking for a copyright violation. The object code is owned by whoever conveys it, so there is no issue here. It doesn't matter if it violates anything, because the worst thing GPL can do is to revert to good old copyright. As for the GPLed part, here's what GPLv3 says: 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies. You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program. No copyright violation either. Bottom line: I still can't see the problem. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: A little GPL riddle (was: GPL as an evaluation license)
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:33:05AM +0300, Aviad Mandel wrote: For the sake of fairness, I'll say that the questions I had about my own little venture are answered, thank you all. But for pure curiosity, I'm left wondering how effective GPL really is. Let's leave the microwave for a second, and think about a proprietary web software browser, for a desktop, using a lot of GPLed code, and should remain closed source. The trick is like this: The installation program generates the executables by compiling the GPLed sources (Gentoo style) and linking them with the proprietary object code. What you get is a binary nobody is allowed to copy, How is this proprietary object code generated? If for compiling it to object code you use header files which are under the GPL, your object files are derived work. IANAL. -- Didi ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
