Re: [xmlvm-users] Clarifications on the Linking Exception

[Arno P. <ar...@pu...>]

sorry for the slow response.



On 3/20/10 2:20 AM, Gergely Kis wrote:
> No, Hungary is in Central Europe, and also an EU member state.

sooorry...

> The problem is, that currently the XMLVM Core Team who own the project,
> are 3 independent persons, who are possibly not even located in the same
> country. This makes it pretty hard to enter into a business relationship
> with you, like to buy a linking exception. Who is signing the contracts?
> All 3 of you? Who is going to create the invoice? Where do we transfer
> the money?
> Also, the contributors should receive written proof that they received a
> linking exception.

these are all fair questions to which we have no specific answers at 
this point. Right now 'payment' for which you receive the linking 
exception is only for code contribution. There is no way to pay $$$ at 
this point. We will address this issue so that your customer can 
purchase a linking exception. But we need some time to implement a 
procedure for this. Right now XMLVM is still a young project and it is 
more important for us to find consensus with you guys (the developers). 
And your currency is code.

> - How much does it cost for a company? Is it even possible to buy it for
> money?
> - Who do we need to contact? All 3 Core Team members at the same time?
>
> I am trying to be practical here: We would recommend to buy XMLVM
> licenses for our customers, but right now, we can't do that, because
> there is no one to buy it from.

We will work on these issues and consult with you guys as usual. Again, 
it is important to us to have a fair way of balancing open source and 
legitimate business interests. I hope that in the meantime, you as 
developers are OK with the 'code contribution in exchange for linking 
exception' idea.

> This is an excerpt from the Contributor License Agreement:
>
>     Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
>     this Agreement, You hereby grant to XMLVM and to recipients of
>     software distributed by XMLVM a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive,
>     no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce,
>     prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
>     sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works.
>
>
> In my interpretation this means that you can do whatever you want with
> the contributed code, which includes re-licensing and selling it. If
> this were not true, then you would not be able to provide linking
> exceptions for the code that contributors wrote.

Yes. You retain the copyright, but by signing the CLA you give us the 
right to do the things you have mentioned.

> Just to clarify: This means that if no part of the compatibility library
> (and of course the Android library) of XMLVM is used in a project, then
> the resulting software is not subject to the GPL, and it can be
> redistributed under any license without a linking exception.
>
> Is this the correct interpretation?

Yes. If you only used XMLVM's compiler, the generated code would not be 
covered by the GPL. Note however, that the generated code without the 
library (e.g., xmlvm.m) will not do much. Once you link xmlvm.m, the GPL 
does apply to your application.

> Any contribution that we (or anybody else) make will have 2 parts:
> - original work: something that was created independently of the
> existing parts of XMLVM, e.g. a new class or method in a class.
> - derived work: something that was created based on existing code in
> XMLVM, e.g. when a method is changed to fix a bug, or the xsl is
> changed...etc.

It is my interpretation of the GPL that these two cases would both be 
considered derived work. How you break up your contribution is up to 
you. There is obviously much value in sending bug fixes (your second 
case). If those bug fixes are 'significant' we will of course also grant 
a linking exception for that. In general we prefer smaller patches. But 
from my perspective you don't need to break it up into new code vs. bug 
fixes. Sometimes you cannot do one without the other.


> [...]
> Do you agree with this approach?
> I am already working on splitting up the patch that is sitting in the
> review system to make it easier to review.
>
> May I ask for the consent from each member of the Core Team about the
> GPL interpretation and the "patch submission policy"?

You certainly my consent. If Wolfgang and Sascha kept on reading until 
here, they can hopefully also give their consent.  :)

> I would very much like to be done with this legal stuff, and get back to
> coding and improving XMLVM. :)

I would like that very much!

Arno