Menu
▾
▴
Re: [xmlvm-users] Clarifications on the Linking Exception
|
From: Sascha H. <sa...@xm...> - 2010-03-25 14:22:32
|
Same here. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Wolfgang Korn <wol...@xm...> wrote: > 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 lis...@li...https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > |
