Thread-topic: Making code available & license (was Re: Examles from apple webobjects 5.4.3 any good)
We had a code scan done using Protex Black Duck. The only thing that was
flagged from Project Wonder was they found similar references to Chuck
Hill's GVCSiteMaker which was released under an Educational Community
License. It took a bit of explaining to document the relationship between
GVCSiteMaker and Project Wonder.
We only use ERExtensions and ERJgroupsSynchronizer
On 5/12/11 12:04 PM, "Ramsey Gurley" <email@hidden> 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
>> 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
>"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."
>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:
>> 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
>> On 5/12/11 10:28 AM, "Ramsey Gurley"
>> 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:
>> 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?
>> 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
>> "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"
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Webobjects-dev mailing list
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>> This email sent to email@hidden<mailto:email@hidden>
>Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
>Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>This email sent to email@hidden
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden