Re: Making code available & license (was Re: Examles from apple webobjects 5.4.3 any good)
Re: Making code available & license (was Re: Examles from apple webobjects 5.4.3 any good)
- Subject: Re: Making code available & license (was Re: Examles from apple webobjects 5.4.3 any good)
- From: Dov Rosenberg <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:44:25 -0700
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Thread-topic: Making code available & license (was Re: Examles from apple webobjects 5.4.3 any good)
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@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
>> 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@hidden<mailto:email@hidden>> 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@hidden<mailto:email@hidden>)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>
>>a.com
>>
>> 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:
>.com
>
>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