I trust they had no issue with the ECL?
On May 12, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote: > 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/chill%40global-village.net > > This email sent to [email protected] -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development Come to WOWODC this July for unparalleled WO learning opportunities and real peer to peer problem solving! Network, socialize, and enjoy a great cosmopolitan city. See you there! http://www.wocommunity.org/wowodc11/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 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]
