On 06/25/2011 06:32 PM, "Cédric Krier" <[email protected]>" wrote: >>> - you write an all new module that does something completly new that is >>> not in Tryton (for example (at this date) a payrol module). Then it >>> can be seen as an original work and you can release it under the license >>> of your choice.
I'm sure the GPL itself disagrees here. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense >> I'm not a lawyer either but I don't think that's possible. At least, it is >> not >> with C/C++ and compiled applications in general. That's why KDE has it's >> libraries released under LGPL instead of GPL, because otherwise nobody could >> create non-GPL applications with their libraries. In the case of Python may >> be >> a bit different because it's not compiled but IMHO the same logic would >> apply. >> So if you intend to extend Tryton by creating module which uses Tryton >> libraries, you're enforced to using the GPL license. You would not be forced >> to that license if you created an application which communicated with Tryton >> using the RPC interface. > > All is about derivative work and not about the technical details. > Here is a text that explains how it is not logical and even absurd to define > derivative work based on technical point of view (especially the plugin and > object parts). > > http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html That page appears a bit dated to me (pre-GPLv3). But technicalities aside, what is the *intent* of the license? Did you intent to allow people to develop and sell proprietary modules for tryton when you selected GPL3? -- ________________________________________________________________ Paul J Stevens pjstevns @ gmail, twitter, skype, linkedin * Premium Hosting Services and Web Application Consultancy * www.nfg.nl/[email protected]/+31.85.877.99.97 ________________________________________________________________ -- [email protected] mailing list
