On 25/06/11 20:57 +0200, Paul J Stevens wrote: > 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
This is if you ship both together. > >> 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? Yes if it is not a derivative work. -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgp87TGw8AW5R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
