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

[Wolfgang K. <wol...@xm...>]

Yes - I agree with Arno's statement concerning GPL interpretation and
monster patches. As can be seen - I read the complete mail ;-)

-- Wolfgang


Arno Puder wrote:
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>