[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
Someone decides to use X and Y together in a new program, Z. They
write a Z.c which includes X.h and Y.h, and then links Z.o with X1.o,
X2.o, Y1.o, Y2.o, etc to produce an executable Z.
Z derives from both X and Y: it depends on both and cannot
Hi people,
I refer to:
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
Has anyone contacted MySQL AB about the recent OSI license update, i.e. the AFL
is now version 2.1 rather than 2.0?
On that note, what about asking about the OSL, since they do claim they have
reviewed the most
with MySQL is on their approved
FLOSS list, what functionally is the difference between MySQL being LGPL
and it being GPL + FLOSS Exception?]
Probably no difference at all.
This entire matter has been blown way out of proportion because of the
insistence of some that the reciprocity conditions
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
But what is it about the copyright law that leads you to believe that
the degree of triviality to wrap a copyrighted work as a black box
makes a difference in the definition of a derivative work?
For one thing, if the wrapper is too trivial we won't have sufficient
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, John Cowan wrote:
The sticky point is this:
It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of
its source. It's obvious that a source tarball is a mere
collective work, or aggregation as the GPL calls it. What,
then, is the status of a binary
On Jun 18, 2004, at 10:58 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
But what is it about the copyright law that leads you to believe that
the degree of triviality to wrap a copyrighted work as a black box
makes a difference in the definition of a derivative work?
For one thing, if the wrapper
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
Agreed. For example, Apple has taken the GNU chess program and added a
different graphic front-end to make the Chess application run without
using X11 under MacOS X. Are Apple's changes to GNU chess original
enough to qualify as a derivative work?
I think John
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of
its source. It's obvious that a source tarball is a mere
collective work, or aggregation as the GPL calls it. What,
then, is the status of a binary compiled from the tarball?
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If you examine the short stories in a theme anthology, there may be
strong connections between them too (and the stronger the connection,
the stronger the copyright available on the collective work as such).
But a theme anthology is still a
John Cowan wrote:
It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of
its source. It's obvious that a source tarball is a mere
collective work, or aggregation as the GPL calls it. What,
then, is the status of a binary compiled from the tarball?
It evidently is a
On Jun 18, 2004, at 1:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
Agreed. For example, Apple has taken the GNU chess program and added
a
different graphic front-end to make the Chess application run without
using X11 under MacOS X. Are Apple's changes to GNU chess original
enough to
On Fri June 18 2004 11:11, Rick Moen wrote:
Yes, it would be nice if the concept of derivative work were further
clarified (in the software context) by our courts. But I can't see why
running it through a compiler would affect anyone's ownership.
Well, would it depend on the specifics of the
Quoting Ihab A.B. Awad ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Fri June 18 2004 11:11, Rick Moen wrote:
Yes, it would be nice if the concept of derivative work were further
clarified (in the software context) by our courts. But I can't see why
running it through a compiler would affect anyone's
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
When did I say no? A binary compiled from the entire tarball is a
derivative of the entire source module collection.
Of the entire collection, yes. But is it a derivative of *each* source
module as well?
And each binary module compiled from each of its modules is a
Rick Moen scripsit:
I just had a bizarre mental image of someone saying Nobody can safely
write songs about mad dogs and Englishmen any more, because one never
knows when the heirs of Noel Coward[1] might bring a lawsuit on a theory
of derivative work.
In a world in which the Commissioner of
Thank you for the clarification
On Fri June 18 2004 11:56, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Ihab A.B. Awad ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Fri June 18 2004 11:11, Rick Moen wrote:
Yes, it would be nice if the concept of derivative work were further
clarified (in the software context) by our courts.
Rick Moen scripsit:
Now, avoiding licence conflict is important, and there are often
significant issues there, but the allegation (supposedly Prof. Moglen's)
we were discussing was actual ownership of code -- the part about
a binary being a derivative work of various things.
Yes. Is
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
In fact, there are two tests that I know of for determining
derivative-work status:
1) If you never saw the original, your work can't be a derivative of it.
2) Otherwise, the abstraction-filtration-comparison test applies: we
reduce the
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
Someone decides to use X and Y together in a new program, Z. They
write a Z.c which includes X.h and Y.h, and then links Z.o with X1.o,
X2.o, Y1.o, Y2.o, etc to produce an executable Z.
Z derives from both X and Y: it depends on both and cannot stand alone.
Not
Unfortunately, you started off wrong and ended with a questionable
observation. First, it is not well settled that a binary is a derivative of
source; that is akin to saying a copy is a derivative of the original. In
a metaphysical sense, we can debate the point, but there is no debate in
the
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
Unfortunately, you started off wrong and ended with a questionable
observation. First, it is not well settled that a binary is a
derivative of source; that is akin to saying a copy is a derivative
of the original. In a metaphysical sense, we can debate the
Glen Low wrote:
[Humor aside, if the code I'm linking with MySQL is on their approved
FLOSS list, what functionally is the difference between MySQL being LGPL
and it being GPL + FLOSS Exception?]
Probably no difference at all.
This entire matter has been blown way out of proportion because
Am Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2004 06:43 schrieben Sie:
Hi,
IIRC it's only the client-side code which has the FLOSS exception.
The actual database engine is purely GPL.
The position of MySQL AB is different. They say to their customers that
creating an application which uses MySQL via their API
Quoting Lawrence Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This entire matter has been blown way out of proportion because of the
insistence of some that the reciprocity conditions of the GPL or LGPL reach
to something more than derivative works. But if you read the actual terms of
both licenses carefully
without requiring another
round of review, we will incorporate it in this version. If it is a
major change, then into the next version it will go.
On Jun 16, 2004, at 12:29, Rick Moen wrote:
MySQL used to be under LGPL. This is a licence exception designed to
fix some licence incompatibilities
On Jun 16, 2004, at 22:43, John Cowan wrote:
No Spam scripsit:
Gill decides to make all of Abcess BSD licensed and incorporates
MySQL code in it. The Abcess code is reasonably independent from the
MySQL code but they are definitely intermingled, linked together in
an executable. He merrily
Quoting Zak Greant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This is close to correct. The FLOSS licensing for the MySQL clients was
the LGPL, while the server was GPL'd. Both were available under
proprietary terms as well.
I should have remembered that, and plead fatigue.
Good point. I think that everyone
sleep worrying about that
particular possible vulnerability. :)
Just for kicks, I'd also like to post the traditional BSD user's
rejoinder to Glen Low's supposedly disasterous scenario:
Gill W. Bates of Evil Corporation MX is of course free to extend MySQL
code under GPL + FLOSS Exception using
Greetings Larry and All,
On Jun 16, 2004, at 23:56, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Glen Low wrote:
[Humor aside, if the code I'm linking with MySQL is on their approved
FLOSS list, what functionally is the difference between MySQL being
LGPL
and it being GPL + FLOSS Exception?]
Probably no difference
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Zak Greant wrote:
The idea of being able to draw a clear line between derivative and
collective works based on treating the Program as a black box with
hooks for connectivity makes me very uncomfortable.
Why does it make you very uncomfortable?
It is generally a
Zak Greant wrote:
The idea of being able to draw a clear line between derivative and
collective works based on treating the Program as a black box with
hooks for connectivity makes me very uncomfortable. It is generally a
relatively trivial task to create a GPL-licensed wrapper that allows
All, esp. Zak:
I have found much to admire in MySQL, Trolltech and Sleepycat's dual licensing
schemes, in particular I believe it fuels innovation rather than maintenance,
while still admirably supporting open sharing. But that's just my opinion.
Obviously I'm contemplating using something
Hi all,
A short while back in May, MySQL submitted its FLOSS License Exception for comments.
http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/getfile/licensing/FLOSS-exception.txt?v=1.4
I'm surely missing something not having legal training, but what is the net effect of
that?
Term 0 says you are free
Quoting No Spam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
A short while back in May, MySQL submitted its FLOSS License Exception
for comments.
http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/getfile/licensing/FLOSS-exception.txt?v=1.4
I'm surely missing something not having legal training, but what is
the net effect
Dear All, esp. Rick:
(BTW, apologies for not quoting the context in my messages, it has to do with my
webmail client.)
I think I understand this a bit better. In GPL clause 2, it says If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
reasonably considered
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
Treatment of independent work under GPL:
if combined, all must be under GPL
if seperate, each can be under different license
No. If you distribute a binary that is compiled from multiple pieces
of source some of which are under the GPL, then all the sources
must
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
(BTW, apologies for not quoting the context in my messages, it has to
do with my webmail client.)
Not a problem.
I think I understand this a bit better. In GPL clause 2, it says If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
All, esp. John, Rick:
OK, let's suppose the following scenario.
Suppose Gill. W Bates works for Evil Corporation MX and wants to create a new database
for public sale called Abcess. He looks at the MySQL code and says, well the MySQL
folk want me to pay for a priopetary license... but hey
No Spam scripsit:
Gill decides to make all of Abcess BSD licensed and incorporates
MySQL code in it. The Abcess code is reasonably independent from the
MySQL code but they are definitely intermingled, linked together in
an executable. He merrily releases Abcess (but keeps the source code
On May 17, 2004, at 21:51, John Cowan wrote:
Zak Greant scripsit:
The intent of the exception is to allow more Free/Libre and Open
Source
Software applications to be able to form derivative works with
GPL-licensed MySQL software.
The exception says that the MySQL client code can be combined
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
The copyright law does NOT
establish exclusive right to combine works. FSF's
theory of derivative works (just like the sort of
FSF-inspired SCO's theory of derivative works) is
total crap.
If you truly believe that, you can make a lot of money publishing
that you've already chosen to ignore it).
regards,
alexander.
To: Alexander Terekhov/Germany/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [off-band] Re: FYI: Next draft of MySQL FLOSS license
exception
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
The copyright law does NOT
establish
Zak Greant scripsit:
The intent of the exception is to allow more Free/Libre and Open Source
Software applications to be able to form derivative works with
GPL-licensed MySQL software.
The exception says that the MySQL client code can be combined with
any code licensed under one
Quoting Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
No, the terms in the BSD license can not be removed by someone
redistributing the work, or even a derived work from a BSD-licensed work
that is under a different license. One can *add* new terms, though,
which the GPL forbids.
A further quibble:
On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 23:54, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Actually, what limits your hability to distribute your application
is not MySQL AB, but the GPL itself.
Indeed. It's the 'viral' nature of GPL that makes dual licencing
economically feasible. See my essay Open Source Business Found
Parasitic
Marius Amado Alves wrote:
On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 23:54, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Actually, what limits your hability to distribute your application
is not MySQL AB, but the GPL itself.
Indeed. It's the 'viral' nature of GPL that makes dual licencing
economically feasible. See my essay Open
On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 16:19, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
No, it's the FUD that the GPL is 'viral' and therefore must
be avoided in business environments.
No. Read my paper.
It is very well possible
to combine GPL-licensed software with proprietary applications.
You just have to make the right
Mitchell Baker wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
No, it's the FUD that the GPL is 'viral' and therefore must
be avoided in business environments. It is very well possible
to combine GPL-licensed software with proprietary applications.
You just have to make the right architectural decisions.
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I say 'viral' I do so without any prejudice
whatsoever.
The word itself is somewhat prejudicial, though, as rather few people
have positive connotations for the word ``virus.''
I think a better word here is ``sticky.'' The GPL is a sticky
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I think a better word here is ``sticky.'' The GPL is a sticky
license; once it is attached to code, it can't be removed. The BSD
license is not sticky; it can be removed (or at least the most
important provisions can).
No, the terms in the BSD
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I think a better word here is ``sticky.'' The GPL is a sticky
license; once it is attached to code, it can't be removed. The BSD
license is not sticky; it can be removed (or at least the most
Viral, fortifying, both have unwarranted connotations (in opposing
directions). What about: black hole?
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
I have a question about mysql's licensing terms. They provide an
option to license either under their proprietary license, or the GPL.
According to their website (and from what I have heard from others),
mysql says that if you are only going to use their software inhouse
and not distribute
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Ryan Damon wrote:
I have a question about mysql's licensing terms. They provide an
option to license either under their proprietary license, or the GPL.
According to their website (and from what I have heard from others),
mysql says that if you are only going to use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 05:01:16PM -0800, Ryan Damon wrote:
Actually, what limits your hability to distribute your application
is not MySQL AB, but the GPL itself.
Thanks for the insights. So let's suppose that I don't use the Mysql
Rodrigo Barbosa scripsit:
Now, a question for the lawyer in the list: if I use a GPL'd documentation
(example: describing an API) to create a software, must my software also
be licensed undes the GPL ?
IANAL, but the license of documentation has nothing to do with the
license of the software
.
According to their website (and from what I have heard from others),
mysql says that if you are only going to use their software inhouse
and not distribute it to others, you can license it under the GPL.
However, if you want to distribute it to third parties as part of your
proprietary software
Mikko Valimaki wrote:
I don't get it: why would MySQL require a commercial license if you only
*ship* your (commercial) product that requires MySQL with MySQL
server?
Because the MySQL AB people think that if your product requires MySQL
(= works only with MySQL), then aggregating MySQL
58 matches
Mail list logo
