Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora Decides To Not Allow SSPLv1 Licensed Software Into Its Repositories

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

    If a company was already violating the AGPL, then the SSPL does nothing new to help MongoDB. Either way, they have to take action to enforce their license.
    Indeed, and of course there should be zillions out there violating the license for sure, I don't know any, but for sure...with a AGPL client..

    If MongoDB continues AGPL, and if they start a litigation against a Company, they receives Zero, in return, and all of us receive everything( The code adaptations made by that company will be open to all ), but MongoDB waisted tons of resources to bring that company in compliance..and received zero in return..

    In the new License case, their are a very important diference...

    With the new License, which Obligates them to open the infrastructure systems, ...its a not acceptable clause,
    And when MongoDB start Litigation with this license, the Company not complaining when they loose the case in court, they will try to settle the case out of court, and will pay back, because no one wants to disclose its infrastructure architecture.. and so Mongodb has money in its pockets...at least that probability is bigger, if not, we all win and MongoDB burned its money to sue a company and received no money back..

    So in my Opinion, they will try to sue, big entities that have a lot to loose( if they lose the case ),
    and this grows exponentially the chance of Mongodb get some fee back..

    Its not unusual to add clauses to GPL licenses,
    Some people use a Grant only clause, for "Non-Comercial usage"( Which means that, to use commercially, the copywriter needs to agree...resuming.. receiving a fee )

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

      That's what Oracle and Google are fighting over in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.. Whether an API itself is copyrightable.

      Oracle would have to win for it to be possible to AGPL the API itself but, trust me. You really don't want that to happen. It would be hugely destructively anti-competitive.

      The status quo that we've been operating under until now is that the structure of an API, in and of itself, isn't sufficiently novel to qualify for copyright protection. (Yes, that is the standard. For example, a single tweet at the old length of 140 characters is probably ineligible for copyright because you can't be sufficiently novel in 140 characters to merit protection.)

      You can copyright a client implementation, but, unless Oracle wins, it's always legal to implement your own alternative client as long as you don't run afoul of the DMCA's DRM anti-circumvention provision while doing it.
      But there I think Oracle is right,
      Because Google is using the Virtual Machine Technology, without consent, which now belongs to Oracle..
      And its known that even at code level Google was using Oracle code without permission, but Google was always surpassed that, because, when someone is infringing your code, after you notify him, he has 1 Year to solve te problem, if incapable, it needs to comply.

      And Google has been usurping Java Technology for almost a decade or so now( Not only Google ), with great success( Even tough that they already lost some cases, but the crime is compensatory of course.. ).

      In Relation to API designation or names, is a very controversial situation..
      Apple even copyright device designs, Ferrari copyrighted, their colour...you cannot use a Ferrari Red colour in another car that not a Ferrari.
      QNX copyrighted the amazing real time OS they have,a truly 100% real time, you cannot use that technology( Although Microsoft usurped it on Windows NT, but it needed to make adaptations, and the performance was not the same, and the BSODS were happening with some frequency )

      But its also a colour.. a lot of car makers copyright names, designations, and so on, in this caos situation,
      Does Oracle has the right to copyright the API names only( the technology is of course copyrighted... or should be, at least the VM )?
      In a world were some can, Oracle also wants the same..

      In my opinion if the API is merely explanatory, and can be remade without deriving work, with no dependency, it should not be considered restricted on usage

      But in the Java case is worst than that, because what mater there is the Java Virtual Machine, the technology behind it, and Sun MicroSystems waisted so much money on it, that they improved the VM, to a very nice level,
      Without it Java would be performing very badly,( like Android does, because its not using the Optimized version of the Java VM.. but a sort of a clone, without paying royalties to the Owners, now Oracle )

      In this regard, Scala, compiles to bytecode, but don't have its own VM I think, Kotlin, I think its the same, but not sure..

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
        Its not unusual to add clauses to GPL licenses,
        Some people use a Grant only clause, for "Non-Comercial usage"( Which means that, to use commercially, the copywriter needs to agree...resuming.. receiving a fee )
        It's either illegal or a no-op to add clauses to GPL-family licenses.

        For the illegal part, the text of GPL-family licenses is licensed to you under the term "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." is "All Rights Reserved", so you modifying it without permission from the FSF is copyright infringement.

        For the no-op part, GPLv3-family licenses contain a clause in section 7 (Additional Terms) which grants you explicit permission to ignore any additional restrictions imposed outside the text of the license...

        All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
        ...and GPLv2-family licenses are written in such a way that, if someone imposes an additional restriction, the GPL is unsatisfiable and you're left in a situation which boils down to "You may use this when X = 1 and X = 2 simultaneously.)

        6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
          But there I think Oracle is right,
          Because Google is using the Virtual Machine Technology, without consent, which now belongs to Oracle..
          And its known that even at code level Google was using Oracle code without permission, but Google was always surpassed that, because, when someone is infringing your code, after you notify him, he has 1 Year to solve te problem, if incapable, it needs to comply.
          If Google is using Oracle code without permission, that's already copyright infringement and/or breach of contract and has no bearing on whether APIs should be copyrightable.

          Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
          Does Oracle has the right to copyright the API names only( the technology is of course copyrighted... or should be, at least the VM )?
          In a world were some can, Oracle also wants the same..
          The legal rationale under which APIs were originally considered ineligible for copyright is the same one which allows reverse-engineering... to produce compatible implementations so that the law cannot be used to perpetually lock in downstream customers by making it prohibitively difficult or impossible for them to migrate off the covered platform.

          The stylistic elements of phones and cars do not contribute meaningfully to vendor lock-in.

          In my opinion if the API is merely explanatory, and can be remade without deriving work, with no dependency, it should not be considered restricted on usage

          But in the Java case is worst than that, because what mater there is the Java Virtual Machine, the technology behind it, and Sun MicroSystems waisted so much money on it, that they improved the VM, to a very nice level,
          Without it Java would be performing very badly,( like Android does, because its not using the Optimized version of the Java VM.. but a sort of a clone, without paying royalties to the Owners, now Oracle )

          In this regard, Scala, compiles to bytecode, but don't have its own VM I think, Kotlin, I think its the same, but not sure..
          The law doesn't work that way. If Google used Sun code without a proper license, then it's copyright infringement and has nothing to do with whether APIs are copyrightable.

          If they didn't, then it's a question of whether APIs are copyrightable... and if APIs are copyrightable, then you get things like Microsoft having a sure-fire way to hold a sword of Damocles over Wine's head.

          I don't know about you, but I don't want the digital equivalent of having to pay a license fee for permission to speak English.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
            Its not unusual to add clauses to GPL licenses,
            Some people use a Grant only clause, for "Non-Comercial usage"( Which means that, to use commercially, the copywriter needs to agree...resuming.. receiving a fee )
            and it's not unusual to get thrown out of distros for that, for json Fedora also stripped out the "json" directory out of the tarball so that the as unfree considered source don't appear anywhere until php upstream replaced the bundeld implementation

            https://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article46/json-license

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by hreindl View Post

              and it's not unusual to get thrown out of distros for that, for json Fedora also stripped out the "json" directory out of the tarball so that the as unfree considered source don't appear anywhere until php upstream replaced the bundeld implementation

              https://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article46/json-license
              Indeed,
              Any person has the freedom to,
              1) Do not use it
              or
              2) comply with it, like in any other licenses..

              Anyway,
              Yaml also has some comercial restrictions on it..

              Cassandra also has restrictions on Usage,
              But it seems more balanced, than MongoDB one, setting a minimum anual revenue has a trigger to go comercial..

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

                If Google is using Oracle code without permission, that's already copyright infringement and/or breach of contract and has no bearing on whether APIs should be copyrightable.
                (...)
                I don't know about you, but I don't want the digital equivalent of having to pay a license fee for permission to speak English.
                Yes Google is usurping Java code from the beginning...
                But they have almost always managed to dribles the Law..

                for example Oracle is pushing the API thing, because its the unique option they have legally..

                Because each time Oracle finds Java code on Android, it informs Google, and Google in a Year change it, substitute it, and go forward, and Oracle will have to continue to find new Code infringements on, years after year..

                Its because of that that Oracle have advanced with the API thing, but it was badly interpreted, Java VM is a software, copyrighted, it doesn't give the right to someone to use parts of its code, and algorithms to build a clone..

                You can create a VM,
                Sure but with your Technology, not the Java VM technology, its copyrighted, and does not allow, copy of its code, its an infringement.

                Also .NET VM is a infringement, of Java VM,
                But there SunMicrosystems committed a big mistake, licensing Java for free on windows( Believing in the words of Microsoft at the time, to never use 'suck a horror thing on windows' ... they were naive), indefinitely..
                So on court, it was decided, that Sun is right, **BUT could not receive nothing because Java os licensed free on Windows**..

                But the Big Mistake of the court,
                Is that Java is a Language, and **The Virtual Machine is another thing independent from Java Language**.

                And the VM was not licensed free,and because its Copyrighted, you cannot us its code, and so .NET VM also infringes Law there..

                But its very difficult to explain to a Court something so complicated, they don't understand the different of concepts, and Oracle is having a bad time, to protect the JVM..

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post

                  Yes Google is usurping Java code from the beginning...
                  But they have almost always managed to dribles the Law..

                  for example Oracle is pushing the API thing, because its the unique option they have legally..

                  [...]
                  You are aware, are you not, that copyright in the modern sense was explicitly designed to incentivize eventual contributions to the public domain?

                  Ignoring the disaster it would be in a practical sense, allowing APIs to be copyrighted would be spitting on the original spirit that the U.S. founding fathers developed it in when they changed it from what it originally was... a censorship pact between the British crown and the printing guilds in exchange for making it a crime for anyone not in on the censorship to print things.

                  Well-managed law-making isn't about making sure everyone gets justice. It's about minimizing harm in the face of inevitable mistakes, oversights, and ambiguities.

                  You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered -- Lyndon Johnson, former President of the U.S.
                  Last edited by ssokolow; 01-20-2019, 11:48 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    It couldn't be much worse than the GPL and some people's concepts of a "derivative work"? Think kernel devs moving interfaces to "GPL-only" and forcing non-free drivers to lie to (more like trick) the kernel build system just so end users can have a working driver?

                    Code:
                    +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL\0Proprietary...
                    <--- hahah

                    When I first got my current video card, there were no acceptable drivers except a "beta" fglrx which needed a lot of editing to work on the kernel du jour.

                    That certainly isn't "freedom" for me, the end user.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      If SSPL covers the whole software stack, you can't run MongoDB on Linux without paying: SSPL doesn't just require source code of your stack to be available, but for it to be available *under SSPL*. GPL code cannot be distributed under another license, so you cannot use MongoDB alongside GPL software or any similar copylefted license. Or proprietary software. Which mostly means you can't use MongoDB unless you pay. It's very reasonable to require people to pay to use your software, many companies do that successfully. It is unreasonable to call such a license ”free" though...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X