The linux journal article specifically states that the definition of a derivative work is very muddy. There are several "tests" that the GPL licenses ask to clarify the usage of the included libraries - I.e. How is it used? Static linked, dynamic linked, etc.
Bottom line - if you get into an IP dispute with a lawyer, it is going to cost you money regardless of how right you feel you are in your usage of a component. Our investors and corporate counsel has taken a conservative approach and dictated - NO GPL, LGPLv3, EPL, MPL licenses. Period. Dov On 5/12/11 12:04 PM, "Ramsey Gurley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On May 12, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Dov Rosenberg wrote: > >> The key part of the GPL license that poisons its use for commercial >>purposes is the very first clause: >> >> 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains >> a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed >> under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, >> refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" >> means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: >> that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, >> either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another >> language. >> >> If your program makes use of a piece of GPL code and will not function >>without it it is considered a derivative work and must be distributed >>under the GPL license. > >To my knowledge, this is a statement of opinion with no basis in case >law. Furthermore, according to IP Law Specialist and OSI general counsel >Lawrence Rosen: > >"The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is >whether the source code of the original program was used, modified, >translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If >not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work." > >http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366 > >That is also how I read section 2 of GPL v2. > >I haven't gotten a C&D from the GPL police yet, so I can only assume >we're fine. In fact, if you think Wonder is in violation of the GPL, I >would encourage you to report it immediately: > >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html > > >Ramsey > >> >> We had to remove the MySQL JDBC driver from our software that we used >>to ship as a convenience for customers. They can download it themselves >>and use it but we can not supply it as part of our commercial product. >> >> The SAP/Oracle lawsuit was based on the fact that even though you can >>download anything for free off Oracle's website to evaluate you are >>still bound by the terms of the license agreement that you have to agree >>to get the software, regardless if you read and or understand it. >>Whether it is distributing a jar that should be paid for, or using a >>component in an unlicensed manner either of those things are cause for a >>lawsuit. Especially if you are a large company with deep pockets >> >> Dov >> >> >> >> >> On 5/12/11 10:28 AM, "Ramsey Gurley" >><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> On May 12, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Dov Rosenberg wrote: >> >> Depends if you want to make money from your app or not. In either case >>the license that you release your app under can't violate the terms of >>any of the components included in your app. If you included GPL licensed >>components it would be a violation of the GPL license to charge money >>for your app. See the note from the GPL v2 license below >> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion >> of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and >> distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 >> above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: >> Š >> b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in >> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any >> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third >> parties under the terms of this License. >> >> I'm sorry... am I misreading something? >> >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html >> >> That section is based on the opening statement. I'm not a lawyer, but >>I like to believe I have a pretty firm grasp of the english language. As >>far as I can tell, 2 b) only applies if you first "modify your copy or >>copies of the Program". >> >> Nowhere does it state that including a GPL'ed binary library in your >>app forbids you from selling your own code under any license you see >>fit. To further clarify 2 a) b) and c), the license immediately follows >>with: >> >> "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If >>identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and >>can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in >>themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those >>sections when you distribute them as separate works" >> >> Regarding the article you linked to, I don't see any mention of OSS or >>GPL anywhere. It appears to be an article about piracy of commercial >>enterprise software. I certainly didn't see any corroborating >>information or case law which would interpret the above statements as: >>"it would be a violation of the GPL license to charge money for your app" >> >> >> Ramsey >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >> Webobjects-dev mailing list >>([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> >>http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/drosenberg%40inquir >>a.com >> >> This email sent to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> > > _______________________________________________ >Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) >Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/drosenberg%40inquira >.com > >This email sent to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
