headers
Ciaran O'Riordan | 1 Aug 2008 09:26
Picon

Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL


Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:
> Read the paper, [...]

I did.  It's drivel.  Next.

[Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it deserved.]

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/

Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org

Recent blog entries:

http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_latex_to_make_pdf_documents_with_japanese_characters
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_sean_daly_kde_swpat_chessboxing
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_india_pats_clipperz_freegis_rms_emacs
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_and_writing_emacs_22_input_methods
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ciaran O'Riordan | 1 Aug 2008 13:36
Picon

Re: GPLv3 question regarding server applications


Hi Bruce,

Below are my thoughts, but I can't be sure I've understood the situation,
and I'm no lawyer anyway.

"Bruce C. Miller" <bm3719 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Say you take a project that is a server application, which is released
> under the GPLv3, make some modifications to it and then make it
> available on the internet for anyone to connect to.

Under GPLv3, you would not have to make your modified source code available.
What section of GPLv3 makes you think you would be required to make source
available?  (you might be right, I might have misunderstood the situation.)

Under the Affero GPLv3 (another licence published by FSF), *if* the original
software included functionality to allow web users to download the source
code, then yes, you would be required to keep that functionality working.

> This server
> doesn't have a client component to it, so, it's similar to a web
> application or something like that.
>
> If you were to rebrand your modified version as a new product

Rebranding would not affect your obligations.  Whether or not a client
component exists probably also won't affect your obligations.

--

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
JohnF | 1 Aug 2008 05:44
Picon
Favicon

Re: LGPL vs. GPL

Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran <at> fsfe.org> wrote:
> Hi John,
> These cases are never black and white, and I don't know PocketCAS or
> MimeTex, so I can't give any advice on this situation, but here are some
> general ramblings anyway...

Hi Ciaran,
     Sure.  Some general ramblings are exactly what I was looking for.
And thanks again for your time and effort.
     Fyi, as far as I can tell, what this guy (Daniel Alm) appears to
be thinking about is writing some glue code that ties together the
xcas/giac packages he cited with mimetex.  And I think that should
be pretty trivial after he's figured out where to best place all the
hooks he'll need.  But figuring that out might or might not be a pain
(just piping one program's output to another's input should be trivial).
     I also can't tell whether Alm is serious about actually doing
something, or whether he's just talking.  My (limited) experience
has been that serious people contact me after they've already written
at least something.  But as far as I can tell, the only thing he's
done so far is email me.

> If PocketCAS is written to specifically work with MimeTex, then PocketCAS
> might be a "derived work" which would mean he needs your permission to
> distribute PocketCAS.  Because your software is GPL'd, "needing your
> permission" means he can either (a) distributing his software under the GPL
> or a GPL compatible licence such as the LGPL or Revised BSD or (b) ask you
> for an exception.
> 
> If PocketCAS only performs simple data exchange with MimeTex, such that
> other applications could be substituted for MimeTex, then it's likely that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bruce C. Miller | 1 Aug 2008 16:09
Picon
Gravatar

Re: GPLv3 question regarding server applications

On Aug 1, 7:36 am, Ciaran O'Riordan <cia... <at> fsfe.org> wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Below are my thoughts, but I can't be sure I've understood the situation,
> and I'm no lawyer anyway.
>
> "Bruce C. Miller" <bm3... <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Say you take a project that is a server application, which is released
> > under the GPLv3, make some modifications to it and then make it
> > available on the internet for anyone to connect to.
>
> Under GPLv3, you would not have to make your modified source code available.
> What section of GPLv3 makes you think you would be required to make source
> available?  (you might be right, I might have misunderstood the situation.)

I'll clarify with some specifics.

There's a game server emulator that is released to the public under
the GPLv3. We've taken this project, modified it into our own version
of the server, and made it available for the public to connect to.
Obviously, our project is still under the GPLv3, since the original
one was. We've made our code available to the public, but there's a
debate regarding whether the GPLv3 requires us to do so.

The GPLv3 doesn't make any specific stipulations for whether the
project is a server or not. At least the v2 simply states that if it
is "made available to the public" then the source must be available as
well. To me, "available to the public" includes having it on the
internet for anyone to connect to, and being a server project like
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Hyman Rosen | 1 Aug 2008 16:34
Picon

Re: GPLv3 question regarding server applications

Bruce C. Miller wrote:
>  whether the GPLv3 requires us to do so.
> 
> To me, "available to the public" includes having it on the
> internet for anyone to connect to

No and no. The GPL only requires that you make the source
available (in your choice of several ways) when you distribute
the program. Running it on your own machine where others can
communicate with it does not obligate you to do anything at
all under the license.

The AGPL does require you to offer sources to whomever connects
to the program (assuming the original program also did so). The
GPL skeptics on this group are even more skeptical of this than
they are of the plain GPL.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Hasler | 1 Aug 2008 17:19

Re: GPLv3 question regarding server applications

Bruce C. Miller writes:
> At least the v2 simply states that if it is "made available to the
> public" then the source must be available as well. To me, "available to
> the public" includes having it on the internet for anyone to connect to,
> and being a server project like this one...

They mean "made _available_", not "made accessible".  If the public can get
copies of the program they must be able to get copies of the source.
--

-- 
John Hasler 
john <at> dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim Smith | 1 Aug 2008 18:25

Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL

In article <mailman.15689.1217575598.18990.gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org>,
 Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran <at> fsfe.org> wrote:

> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:
> > Read the paper, [...]
> 
> I did.  It's drivel.  Next.
> 
> [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it 
> deserved.]

Can you give any specific criticism?

--

-- 
--Tim Smith
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Hyman Rosen | 1 Aug 2008 22:40
Picon

Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> I did.  It's drivel.  Next.
> [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that
 > a skim is all it deserved.]

Mostly, it says that if someone wants to fight the restrictions
of the GPL while continuing to distribute software containing
code licensed by it, there are a number of ways to do so, and
it's going to take a court to sort it all out and it could go
either way. It mentions the first-sale workaround too.

I don't see why it would be considered "drivel". I expect that
the GPL would fare pretty well in court these days, because on
its side it has the enormous success of Linux and the various
vendors who are happily distributing GPLed code and making money,
but you never know.
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Tim Smith | 2 Aug 2008 06:40

Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL

In article <MwKkk.7$wT3.1 <at> fe089.usenetserver.com>,
 Hyman Rosen <hyrosen <at> mail.com> wrote:

> Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > I did.  It's drivel.  Next.
> > [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that
>  > a skim is all it deserved.]
...
> I don't see why it would be considered "drivel". I expect that

O'Riordan says he skimmed it.  The only way anyone can skim a paper of 
this nature and get any meaningful understanding of it is if they are an 
expert in copyright law.  O'Riordan is not an expert in copyright law.  

As is typical in legal writing, nearly everything important in the paper 
is backed with cites.  To determine that a paper is "drivel", you have 
to chase down the cites.

> the GPL would fare pretty well in court these days, because on
> its side it has the enormous success of Linux and the various
> vendors who are happily distributing GPLed code and making money,
> but you never know.

What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different 
pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the 
derivative work preparation right?

--

-- 
--Tim Smith
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
David Kastrup | 2 Aug 2008 19:53
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: LGPL vs. GPL

JohnF <john <at> please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:

> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran <at> fsfe.org> wrote:
>> JohnF <john <at> please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
>> > > One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute
>> > > MimeTex's source with the binary (or an offer to send people
>> > > the source on request).
>> > 
>> > I'd thought a link to its homepage (where the source can be
>> > downloaded) satisfies that requirement.
>> 
>> Yes, I think so too.
>> 
>> > The free-of-charge version of his program helps society
>> > (assuming it's useful in the first place)
>> 
>> In the short term, in technical ways, maybe, but it will also compete
>> against truly free applictions that are trying to do the same thing.
>
> Hadn't thought of that.  But, on second thought now, I'd say,
> "let the best program win."  If the commercial application is
> truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
> inspire an open source "knock off."  If that doesn't happen,
> then the superior commercial application has every ethical right
> to dominate the market if users are willing to pay the price
> (dollar price as well as closed source price).

If people thought like you, child labor and slavery would be the
dominant ways of producing goods even now.  You not only mandate to let
the market decide about good or bad, but you also request that one
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |

Gmane