xmlvm-users

[xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

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

Guys,

a while ago we had a longer discussion regarding commercial usage of 
XMLVM. We (the XMLVM core team) explained our dual licensing strategy, 
but we have not yet explained what constitutes a contribution for which 
we will grant the non-transferrable linking exception.

We had an internal discussion to clarify this point and we would like to 
solicit feedback from you.

Arno

---

XMLVM is released under the GPL license. If you use XMLVM to translate 
your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL 
license. If you would like to use XMLVM for a commercial product and do 
not want to release the source code of your application (as required by 
the GPL), we offer you a non-transferrable linking exception in return 
for a contribution to the XMLVM project. The linking exception will 
enable you to publish a commercial application build with XMLVM without 
having to release your own source code.

There are different ways to make a contribution to the XMLVM project for 
which we will grant you the non-transferrable linking exception. One 
option is to submit a substantial patch to increase the quality of 
XMLVM. Please ask us if you want to clarify whether your proposed patch 
qualifies as substantial.

Another option to make a contribution to XMLVM is by making a donation. 
We will grant the non-transferrable linking exception of the current 
version of XMLVM for US $300 per developer. The $300 donation will give 
the developer the right to use the current version of XMLVM without 
having to release the source code of his/her applications. This donation 
covers minor revisions (bug fixes). Major revision updates of XMLVM can 
be obtained by an additional US $100 per developer.

If XMLVM is lacking certain features that you need for your application, 
we also offer to implement those missing features on a contracting 
basis. Please contact us for details.

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

[Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...>]

On 26 Οκτ 2009, at 6:14 ΜΜ, Arno Puder wrote:

>
>
> ...  If you use XMLVM to translate
> your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL
> license. ...



I think there is a misconception here :)

The source code of my application should *not* be under the GPL  
license. It could be under the license I want it to be. What actually  
xmlvm does is only to transform my code from one "style" to the other   
(i.e. from *.class to *.xml or *.m or whatever)
All rights and license and all that in any case remain to the original  
author.

I think what you probably mean is that, the source code of my  
application *should* be under a GPL-compatible license (not  
necessarily under GPL itself) if I want to *link* it with the Obj-C  
compatibility library (which is also under GPL).
If it's not, it's a GPL violation!


The rest of the text is something I think I understand.
If I got it right, if someone want to use this library to create an  
iPhone application (for example), then he has to do one of the options  
provided in the previous email.

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

[Markus H. <ma...@ti...>]

I would understand it in this way:

The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under  
GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want, as  
long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import  
org.xmlvm.iphone.*).

So converting an Android app, that does not use any xmlvm code in the  
java source, will not have to be under GPL. Only the resulting *.m and  
*.h files will.

But writing directly to the xmlvm compatibility API (import  
org.xmlvm.iphone.*) will force you to make your java code GPL, too.

Is this understanding correct?

If not could you explain why not? :)

And maybe you should define what a major revision update is. Is 1.0- 
 >1.1 major or 1.0->2.0?

Markus

Am 26.10.2009 um 17:14 schrieb Arno Puder:

>
> Guys,
>
> a while ago we had a longer discussion regarding commercial usage of
> XMLVM. We (the XMLVM core team) explained our dual licensing strategy,
> but we have not yet explained what constitutes a contribution for  
> which
> we will grant the non-transferrable linking exception.
>
> We had an internal discussion to clarify this point and we would  
> like to
> solicit feedback from you.
>
> Arno
>
> ---
>
> XMLVM is released under the GPL license. If you use XMLVM to translate
> your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL
> license. If you would like to use XMLVM for a commercial product and  
> do
> not want to release the source code of your application (as required  
> by
> the GPL), we offer you a non-transferrable linking exception in return
> for a contribution to the XMLVM project. The linking exception will
> enable you to publish a commercial application build with XMLVM  
> without
> having to release your own source code.
>
> There are different ways to make a contribution to the XMLVM project  
> for
> which we will grant you the non-transferrable linking exception. One
> option is to submit a substantial patch to increase the quality of
> XMLVM. Please ask us if you want to clarify whether your proposed  
> patch
> qualifies as substantial.
>
> Another option to make a contribution to XMLVM is by making a  
> donation.
> We will grant the non-transferrable linking exception of the current
> version of XMLVM for US $300 per developer. The $300 donation will  
> give
> the developer the right to use the current version of XMLVM without
> having to release the source code of his/her applications. This  
> donation
> covers minor revisions (bug fixes). Major revision updates of XMLVM  
> can
> be obtained by an additional US $100 per developer.
>
> If XMLVM is lacking certain features that you need for your  
> application,
> we also offer to implement those missing features on a contracting
> basis. Please contact us for details.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart  
> your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and  
> stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

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

Markus Heberling wrote:
> I would understand it in this way:
> 
> The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under GPL. 
> The original java code can remain under any license you want, as long as 
> you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import org.xmlvm.iphone.*).
> 
> So converting an Android app, that does not use any xmlvm code in the 
> java source, will not have to be under GPL. Only the resulting *.m and 
> *.h files will.

however, the resulting .m and .h code won't do you any good unless you 
link it to XMLVM's libraries. If, for example, your Android app uses 
class 'Activity', you will need the XMLVM compatibility library of this 
class.

> But writing directly to the xmlvm compatibility API (import 
> org.xmlvm.iphone.*) will force you to make your java code GPL, too.

yes, you would need to release your Java code under the GPL.

> And maybe you should define what a major revision update is. Is 1.0->1.1 
> major or 1.0->2.0?

Major revision: significant new functionality. We haven't decided on a 
versioning scheme yet, but it will probably be 1.0 -> 2.0.

Arno

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

[Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...>]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti...> wrote:

> I would understand it in this way:
>
> The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under GPL. The
> original java code can remain under any license you want, as long as you
> don't link to xmlvm files in there (import org.xmlvm.iphone.*).
>

This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be under
GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license?
What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but generate
output to be non-GPL?

It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file and
can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library.

Thanks
Inder

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

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

a license only defines terms and conditions. It is our prerogative where 
this license is being applied to.

Arno


Inderjeet Singh wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti... 
> <mailto:ma...@ti...>> wrote:
> 
>     I would understand it in this way:
> 
>     The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under
>     GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want,
>     as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import
>     org.xmlvm.iphone.*).
> 
> 
> This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be 
> under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license?
> What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but 
> generate output to be non-GPL? 
> 
> It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file 
> and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library.
> 
> Thanks
> Inder
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

[Björn C. <bj...@ca...>]

I have been searching for a answer to the question of the generated code 
and found this link.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

/Björn
Inderjeet Singh skrev:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti... 
> <mailto:ma...@ti...>> wrote:
>
>     I would understand it in this way:
>
>     The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under
>     GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want,
>     as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import
>     org.xmlvm.iphone.*).
>
>
> This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be 
> under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license?
> What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but 
> generate output to be non-GPL? 
>
> It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file 
> and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library.
>
> Thanks
> Inder
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>   

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

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

It is my understanding of the GPL, that derivative work (i.e., your 
application that is linked to a GPLed library) also needs to be GPLed. 
Of course you can also dual license with a GPL-compatible license.

Arno


Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote:
> On 26 Οκτ 2009, at 6:14 ΜΜ, Arno Puder wrote:
> 
>>
>> ...  If you use XMLVM to translate
>> your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL
>> license. ...
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a misconception here :)
> 
> The source code of my application should *not* be under the GPL  
> license. It could be under the license I want it to be. What actually  
> xmlvm does is only to transform my code from one "style" to the other   
> (i.e. from *.class to *.xml or *.m or whatever)
> All rights and license and all that in any case remain to the original  
> author.
> 
> I think what you probably mean is that, the source code of my  
> application *should* be under a GPL-compatible license (not  
> necessarily under GPL itself) if I want to *link* it with the Obj-C  
> compatibility library (which is also under GPL).
> If it's not, it's a GPL violation!
> 
> 
> The rest of the text is something I think I understand.
> If I got it right, if someone want to use this library to create an  
> iPhone application (for example), then he has to do one of the options  
> provided in the previous email.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

[Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...>]

How does it work for other GPL compilers such as those from
GNU? Their output is not required to be under GPL.

I do understand that once anyone links to the compatibility library, they
are forced to put the linked files under GPL.

Thanks
Inder


On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Arno Puder <ar...@pu...> wrote:

>
> It is my understanding of the GPL, that derivative work (i.e., your
> application that is linked to a GPLed library) also needs to be GPLed.
> Of course you can also dual license with a GPL-compatible license.
>
> Arno
>
>

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

[Kevin G. <ke...@co...>]

I get that the generated source is under GPL, but the original Java seems a
bit odd. I mean wouldn't anyone that didn't want to comply simply hack up a
bunch of classes with no implementation that match the prototypes of the
XMLVM java compatbility lib - thereby not linking their Java to the GPL Java
stuff?

Obviously the obj-c output will still be linked to the XMLVM implementation,
and so has to be GPL. However, as I've said before I don't so why anyone
would be particular worried about letting the generated obj-c stuff out into
the wild - I don't worry about letting class files out to be decomplied :)

We might want to relicense XMLVM to use as part of another product later,
would you be open to discussions around that? (either in the open or
offline)

Kev

2009/10/26 Arno Puder <ar...@pu...>

>
> It is my understanding of the GPL, that derivative work (i.e., your
> application that is linked to a GPLed library) also needs to be GPLed.
> Of course you can also dual license with a GPL-compatible license.
>
> Arno
>
>
> Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote:
> > On 26 Οκτ 2009, at 6:14 ΜΜ, Arno Puder wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> ...  If you use XMLVM to translate
> >> your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL
> >> license. ...
> >
> >
> >
> > I think there is a misconception here :)
> >
> > The source code of my application should *not* be under the GPL
> > license. It could be under the license I want it to be. What actually
> > xmlvm does is only to transform my code from one "style" to the other
> > (i.e. from *.class to *.xml or *.m or whatever)
> > All rights and license and all that in any case remain to the original
> > author.
> >
> > I think what you probably mean is that, the source code of my
> > application *should* be under a GPL-compatible license (not
> > necessarily under GPL itself) if I want to *link* it with the Obj-C
> > compatibility library (which is also under GPL).
> > If it's not, it's a GPL violation!
> >
> >
> > The rest of the text is something I think I understand.
> > If I got it right, if someone want to use this library to create an
> > iPhone application (for example), then he has to do one of the options
> > provided in the previous email.
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmlvm-users mailing list
> > xml...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

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

Kevin Glass wrote:
> I get that the generated source is under GPL, but the original Java 
> seems a bit odd. I mean wouldn't anyone that didn't want to comply 
> simply hack up a bunch of classes with no implementation that match the 
> prototypes of the XMLVM java compatbility lib - thereby not linking 
> their Java to the GPL Java stuff?

Consider you use g++ to compile a C++ program to assembler. That 
assembler is linked against a library. If you link it with a GPLed 
library, not only the assembler but also the original C++ source must be 
GPLed. Otherwise there wouldn't be a difference between GPL and LGPL. In 
this way, we treat Objective-C as assembly code that is generated by XMLVM.

Arno

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

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

Interesting, thanks for the link. Then we will remove the sentence in 
the text I sent earlier.

Arno


Björn Caroll wrote:
> I have been searching for a answer to the question of the generated code 
> and found this link.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput
> 
> /Björn
> Inderjeet Singh skrev:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti... 
>> <mailto:ma...@ti...>> wrote:
>>
>>     I would understand it in this way:
>>
>>     The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under
>>     GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want,
>>     as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import
>>     org.xmlvm.iphone.*).
>>
>>
>> This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be 
>> under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license?
>> What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but 
>> generate output to be non-GPL? 
>>
>> It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file 
>> and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Inder
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
>> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
>> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
>> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmlvm-users mailing list
>> xml...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>>   
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

[Jacob N. <jac...@gm...>]

This is very fine, thank you for clarifying it all.

In my case, I can tell my boss there is a max cap of $300 (the donation)
which we can even wait by paying until we have a release ready product (at
which we will probably have contributed so much that we won't have to do the
donation anyway). I'm very happy.
(I'm still hoping to start iPhone development, but the decision might long
to get taken)


2009/10/26 Arno Puder <ar...@pu...>

> XMLVM is released under the GPL license. If you use XMLVM to translate
> your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL
> license.


Regarding whether its the normal GPL mechanism (that a linked GPL library
forces the source code using it to be GPL) or some other enforcement
mechanism (like the sentence above), I cant see it do any practical
difference.

You should consider the hypothetical possibility that someone makes a
non-GPL version of the libraries, in which case you would need to change to
another enforcement mechanism.

Thank you
Jacob



-- 
Jacob Nordfalk
एस्पेरान्तो के हो?  http://www.esperanto.org.np/.
Memoraĵoj de KEF -. http://kef.saluton.dk/memorajoj/

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

[Sascha H. <sa...@xm...>]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Jacob Nordfalk <jac...@gm...>wrote:

> This is very fine, thank you for clarifying it all.
>
> In my case, I can tell my boss there is a max cap of $300 (the donation)
> which we can even wait by paying until we have a release ready product (at
> which we will probably have contributed so much that we won't have to do the
> donation anyway). I'm very happy.
>

This is a very important point, yes. As XMLVM is OpenSource you an try out
and see what it does. If it doesn't work, you don't have to use and pay for
it. So there is actually no risk involved.



> (I'm still hoping to start iPhone development, but the decision might long
> to get taken)
>
>
> 2009/10/26 Arno Puder <ar...@pu...>
>
> XMLVM is released under the GPL license. If you use XMLVM to translate
>> your application, the resulting source code will also be under the GPL
>> license.
>
>
> Regarding whether its the normal GPL mechanism (that a linked GPL library
> forces the source code using it to be GPL) or some other enforcement
> mechanism (like the sentence above), I cant see it do any practical
> difference.
>
> You should consider the hypothetical possibility that someone makes a
> non-GPL version of the libraries, in which case you would need to change to
> another enforcement mechanism.
>
> Thank you
> Jacob
>
>
>
> --
> Jacob Nordfalk
> एस्पेरान्तो के हो?  http://www.esperanto.org.np/.
> Memoraĵoj de KEF -. http://kef.saluton.dk/memorajoj/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>
>

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

[Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...>]

Just to clarify: do you mean that the generated output (.m and .h files) is
no longer under GPL?

Thanks
Inder


On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Arno Puder <ar...@pu...> wrote:

>
> Interesting, thanks for the link. Then we will remove the sentence in
> the text I sent earlier.
>
> Arno
>
>
> Björn Caroll wrote:
> > I have been searching for a answer to the question of the generated code
> > and found this link.
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput
> >
> > /Björn
> > Inderjeet Singh skrev:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling <ma...@ti...
> >> <mailto:ma...@ti...>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     I would understand it in this way:
> >>
> >>     The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always under
> >>     GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you want,
> >>     as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import
> >>     org.xmlvm.iphone.*).
> >>
> >>
> >> This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output to be
> >> under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license?
> >> What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but
> >> generate output to be non-GPL?
> >>
> >> It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary file
> >> and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Inder
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and
> stay
> >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmlvm-users mailing list
> >> xml...@li...
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmlvm-users mailing list
> > xml...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>

Re: [xmlvm-users] Commercial usage

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

yes.

Inderjeet Singh wrote:
> Just to clarify: do you mean that the generated output (.m and .h files) 
> is no longer under GPL? 
> 
> Thanks
> Inder
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Arno Puder <ar...@pu... 
> <mailto:ar...@pu...>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Interesting, thanks for the link. Then we will remove the sentence in
>     the text I sent earlier.
> 
>     Arno
> 
> 
>     Björn Caroll wrote:
>      > I have been searching for a answer to the question of the
>     generated code
>      > and found this link.
>      > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput
>      >
>      > /Björn
>      > Inderjeet Singh skrev:
>      >>
>      >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Markus Heberling
>     <ma...@ti... <mailto:ma...@ti...>
>      >> <mailto:ma...@ti... <mailto:ma...@ti...>>> wrote:
>      >>
>      >>     I would understand it in this way:
>      >>
>      >>     The resulting Obj/C source (the *.m and *.h files) is always
>     under
>      >>     GPL. The original java code can remain under any license you
>     want,
>      >>     as long as you don't link to xmlvm files in there (import
>      >>     org.xmlvm.iphone.*).
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> This seems strange. GPL project typically dont force the output
>     to be
>      >> under GPL. Can you even enforce it via your license?
>      >> What prevents anyone from forking XMLVM as another GPL project, but
>      >> generate output to be non-GPL?
>      >>
>      >> It seems to me that only thing that is part of the output binary
>     file
>      >> and can be forced to be under GPL is the compatibility library.
>      >>
>      >> Thanks
>      >> Inder
>      >>
>      >>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >>
>      >>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
>      >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year.
>     Jumpstart your
>      >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market
>     and stay
>      >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register
>     now!
>      >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
>      >>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >>
>      >> _______________________________________________
>      >> xmlvm-users mailing list
>      >> xml...@li...
>     <mailto:xml...@li...>
>      >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
>      > is the only developer event you need to attend this year.
>     Jumpstart your
>      > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market
>     and stay
>      > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
>      > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > xmlvm-users mailing list
>      > xml...@li...
>     <mailto:xml...@li...>
>      > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
>     is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
>     developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and
>     stay
>     ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
>     http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
>     _______________________________________________
>     xmlvm-users mailing list
>     xml...@li...
>     <mailto:xml...@li...>
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users
> 
>