Alexander, Thanks a lot for the details.
Antoine [image: PrestaShop] <https://www.prestashop.com/?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_campaign=emails-signatures> Antoine Thomas aka ttoine Developer Advocate t: +33 (0)6 63 13 79 06 antoine.tho...@prestashop.com On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 19:19, Alexander Terekhov <herr.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Alexander, in your opinion, if the libraries are correctly used, without > modifications, this ok to ship them whatever license they use? " > > Yes. > > Note that the FSF is on record supporting this view: Back in 2006 when Dan > Wallace alleged in court > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._International_Business_Machines_Corp.#FSF_lawsuit > that the GPL is meant to infect collective works as a whole (combined works > consisting of several independent works) resulting in quasi-automatic > aggregation of independent copyrights under the GPL in a pool of > GPL-copylefted works, professional lawyers hired by the FSF responded that > such allegation is baseless. IIRC docket number 37. Here's the quote: > > "In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software > copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL > is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the > GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the > Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume > of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the > scope of this License." > > Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing > on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can > examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached > contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract > controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. > 2005)." > > Attribution: > > "Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49) > Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49) > Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > ICE MILLER > One American Square Box 82001 > Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002 > 317.236.2100" > > Am Mi., 19. Juni 2019 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Antoine Thomas < > antoine.tho...@prestashop.com>: > >> Alexander, in your opinion, if the libraries are correctly used, without >> modifications, this ok to ship them whatever license they use? >> >> >> [image: PrestaShop] >> <https://www.prestashop.com/?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_campaign=emails-signatures> >> >> Antoine Thomas aka ttoine >> >> Developer Advocate >> >> t: +33 (0)6 63 13 79 06 >> >> antoine.tho...@prestashop.com >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 14:53, Alexander Terekhov <herr.al...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> "A project" == https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthology - nothing more >>> or less than that. >>> >>> The issue of "compatibility" is overstated by the proponents of "strong >>> copyleft". >>> >>> Just 0.2€ >>> >>> Am Mi., 19. Juni 2019 um 11:29 Uhr schrieb Antoine Thomas < >>> antoine.tho...@prestashop.com>: >>> >>>> Patrice, >>>> >>>> One last question. You said: >>>> > the EUPL covered code is publicly available and reusable in other >>>> projects covered by OSL, GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL etc. >>>> >>>> But what about the opposite, using OSL, GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL etc. in >>>> a EUPL project? and then ship it? >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: PrestaShop] >>>> <https://www.prestashop.com/?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_campaign=emails-signatures> >>>> >>>> Antoine Thomas aka ttoine >>>> >>>> Developer Advocate >>>> >>>> t: +33 (0)6 63 13 79 06 >>>> >>>> antoine.tho...@prestashop.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 23:17, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz < >>>> pe.schm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Antoine, >>>>> Providing a definitive legal answer (and certainty) in your specific >>>>> case is difficult. >>>>> At Joinup.eu we constantly promote interoperability and the respect of >>>>> primary licences. >>>>> Therefore, in our view, a global project may include components under >>>>> several licences and each component should keep its licence (by the way, >>>>> we >>>>> spell it "licence" and not "license" as in US). >>>>> You wrote the you "use" libraries. >>>>> As I said, "using" a library according to its normal usage instruction >>>>> should never impact the licensing of a resulting work. >>>>> To take a very trivial example, If someone writes a novel and >>>>> distributes it electronically to third parties as a ."doc file", this >>>>> file >>>>> (in MS proprietary format) may contain some Microsoft proprietary code or >>>>> data formats, but this is the result of the normal use of MS/word and >>>>> Microsoft will not request any copyright on this novel. >>>>> In case of linking, the copy or reuse or decompilation of data >>>>> formats/API needed for implementing interoperability is considered as a >>>>> copyright exception by the European law and I am not aware of any case law >>>>> contradicting that point, even outside Europe. Does anyone knows? >>>>> So the real issue that you could meet is in case of real merging of >>>>> software codes from components covered by incompatible licences (in all >>>>> other cases each component could be licensed under its primary licence, >>>>> i.e. OSL or or LGPL or GPL). This is to avoid, generally speaking. >>>>> The French reference you mention is outdated regarding the EUPL-1.2 >>>>> which is now compatible with all the copyleft licences listed in this >>>>> "Veni >>>>> Vidi Libri" table.. >>>>> For this reason, the EUPL-1.2 was preferred in case of project >>>>> integrating multiple components, as it was reported by Dr Martin Serrano >>>>> (Fiesta-IoT project) in a recent Joinup published interview: >>>>> >>>>> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/SC50_D06.01.02_EUPL_Interview_summary_vFINAL.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Of course, you will never obtain a 100% guarantee of legal security in >>>>> all possible cases and jurisdictions around the world, but the fact is >>>>> that >>>>> the EUPL covered code is publicly available and reusable in other projects >>>>> covered by OSL, GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL etc. So no one should have any real >>>>> interest in litigation. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Patrice >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 18 juin 2019 à 17:02, Antoine Thomas < >>>>> antoine.tho...@prestashop.com> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Patrice, thanks a lot for your answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> About your introduction question: the original code of PrestaShop >>>>>> project is currently in OSL, with some modules in AFL. We also rely on >>>>>> librairies in MIT and BSD, shipped with the installer (like the Symfony >>>>>> framework). But, we would like to use a few librairies in LGPL and GPLv3 >>>>>> to >>>>>> accelerate our developments and features. And we feel limited by the use >>>>>> of >>>>>> the OSL license: it is difficult to find information about compatibility >>>>>> and other feedback, as only a few projects are using it. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, if I understand well, changing the license of the project to >>>>>> EUPL-1.2 could allow a project to include and ship both OSL (like our >>>>>> current code) and GPLv3 (some new libraries) code? Interesting. Would >>>>>> this >>>>>> be possible only in the European legal framework, or also outside Europe? >>>>>> >>>>>> I had a quick look at an other reference (in French, but easy to >>>>>> understand), a compatibility table between licenses: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://vvlibri.org/fr/guide-de-lauteur-libre-gerer-des-licences-differentes-compatibilites-de-licences/tableau-de >>>>>> Maybe this table needs to be updated about EUPL? What do you think? >>>>>> Do you have an equivalent on joinup.eu? >>>>>> >>>>>> Or maybe, if we follow this table, the best way is to change the >>>>>> license of the OSL code, and move it to GPLv3. That would be a huge IP >>>>>> work, to check with all authors of the project's code if they agree. But >>>>>> that would be an interesting investment in IP for our community of users >>>>>> and developers. And, also, in a time when many business backed open >>>>>> source >>>>>> project move to proprietary, this would be a strong message of >>>>>> PrestaShop's >>>>>> commitment to open source. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patrice, what do you think? is it possible to have your feedback on >>>>>> this questions and hypothesis? Maybe some other reader of this mailing >>>>>> list >>>>>> could have feedback to share? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Antoine >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [image: PrestaShop] >>>>>> <https://www.prestashop.com/?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_campaign=emails-signatures> >>>>>> >>>>>> Antoine Thomas aka ttoine >>>>>> >>>>>> Developer Advocate >>>>>> >>>>>> t: +33 (0)6 63 13 79 06 >>>>>> >>>>>> antoine.tho...@prestashop.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 13:53, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via >>>>>> License-discuss <license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Antoine, >>>>>>> It seems related to the question: how far is your project (that >>>>>>> would be globally licensed under OSL) a derivative of the GPL-3.0 code, >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> not? >>>>>>> It is also related to your legal framework, in so far the various >>>>>>> codes are more or less closely linked. >>>>>>> The European legal framework considers that the normal and fair use >>>>>>> of a tool (like a library, according to its usage instructions, without >>>>>>> modifying the library source code) does not make resulting works >>>>>>> "derivatives" of the used tool. >>>>>>> In addition, it states (in my opinion) that linking different >>>>>>> components, for the sole and fair purpose of making these components >>>>>>> interoperable, is a copyright exception and cannot be restricted by the >>>>>>> copyright owner. This temperate a lot the theory of "strong copyleft" on >>>>>>> this point. (Law lovers will reed Recital 15 of *Directive >>>>>>> 2009/24/EC >>>>>>> <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024&from=EN>*). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An alternative solution is the use of the EUPL-1.2 that is expressly >>>>>>> covered by the European legal framework and is expressly compatible with >>>>>>> both the OSL and the GPL-3.0 >>>>>>> More on joinup.eu and in particular the recent JLA (joinup >>>>>>> licensing assistant) >>>>>>> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/joinup-licensing-assistant-jla >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Patrice >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 11:57, Antoine Thomas < >>>>>>> antoine.tho...@prestashop.com> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With our IP team, we have a few questions about compatibility >>>>>>>> between OSLv3 and GPLv3. We consider as acknowledged that it's not >>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>> to distribute GPLv2 code in an OSLv3 project. However, what about the >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> recent GPLv3, considered to be more open? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's about using librairies and other dependencies in an >>>>>>>> open source project, and then ship it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, there are two questions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1/ Is it possible to ship GPLv3 code within an OSLv3 project >>>>>>>> installer? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2/ Is it possible to ship OSLv3 code within a GPLv3 project >>>>>>>> installer? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think? what is your experience? Is there some examples? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Antoine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [image: PrestaShop] >>>>>>>> <https://www.prestashop.com/?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_campaign=emails-signatures> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Antoine Thomas aka ttoine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Developer Advocate >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> t: +33 (0)6 63 13 79 06 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> antoine.tho...@prestashop.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> License-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz >>>>>>> pe.schm...@googlemail.com >>>>>>> tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> License-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz >>>>> pe.schm...@googlemail.com >>>>> tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> License-discuss mailing list >>>> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>>> >>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> License-discuss mailing list >>> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
