Larry - For what it is worth, I think your analysis is exactly correct. -Rod
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > > Here are two examples that I think would not be allowed > > under OSL which are allowed under IDPL. > > > > A commercial database repair tool that uses the on disk > > structure definitions, compression/decompression routines and > > other parts of the Firebird database code. The repair tool > > combines that code with proprietary code to discover and > > repairs corruption. Developers of such a tool would publish > > the interfaces between the Firebird code and their own code, > > but would not be compelled to release their product under an > > open source license. > > > > A package for automatically compressing the stored format > > of the database. The actual compression code could remain > > proprietary. The developer could sell "Firebird in half the > > space". However the interfaces to the compression code would > > be published under the IDPL, allowing others to create > > plug-replaceable compression packages. > > Ann, > > As I understand copyright law, the OSL and IDPL have the same effect. > > I don't see the plug-in applications you described as creating "derivative > works", except for the modifications you have to make to the Firebird code > itself to plug-in those modules to those API interfaces. The changes to > Firebird code would have to be distributed under the OSL, but only those > changes. Licensees could implement other plug-in software to discover and > repair corruption or to do compression -- and plug them in the same way. It > makes no difference whether the plug-ins are open source or proprietary. > > This depends, of course, on my analysis of whether the combinations you > described are "derivative works." I suggested that they aren't, based on > your brief descriptions. (Please don't draw specific legal conclusions from > my preliminary read of your software architecture; I disclaim anything you > might interpret as "advice"!) I gather your product is designed to work with > independently-created and independently-owned plug-ins. If so, how does your > simply linking to those plug-ins (or from those plug-ins to you) cause them > to be brought under the terms of the OSL? A licensor under the OSL has no > right to do that. No open source license can prohibit any licensee from > creating proprietary combinations of independently-created proprietary and > open source software that merely work together through APIs. Such > combinations are not "derivative works" of software. > > Does anyone on this list disagree with that conclusion? If so, what factors > about derivative works analysis in the software context am I forgetting that > are relevant to Ann's brief examples? > > /Larry Rosen > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
