Re: Re: Tricky Ozone Licensing questions (LGPL? or GPL?)

<[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.java.ozone.user
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Leo and Per,

Thanks for the licensing explanation!

- Thomas

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:37:08 +0200
>From: Leo Mekenkamp <[email protected]>  
>Subject: Re: [Ozone-users] Re: Tricky Ozone Licensing 
questions (LGPL? or GPL?)  
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: Ozone Users <[email protected]>
>
>Hi Thomas,
>
>As far as I see it, Ozone is GPL period. But in order to 
create closed
>source programs that use ozone as data storage, you may use 
Ozone under
>the LGPL.
>
>What you may however NOT do, is take Ozone code under the 
LGPL and
>incorporate it into your own _software_; you then need to 
use the GPL
>license.
>
>Example: you create your own application, let's call it X, 
that uses
>parts of Ozone, for instance the transactional stuff. Then 
you
>distribute X on a proprietary license and the Ozone parts 
with the LGPL.
>You are now in violation of the Ozone license.
>
>So AFAIK (but IANAL), that means in your situation you are 
in the clear,
>as long as you make the changed sources to Ozone available 
when you
>distribute it.
>
>Of course the most easy way out is to have your changes 
incorporated
>into the main Ozone tree on sf.net.
>
>Cheers,
>Leo
>
>On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 22:50, [email protected] wrote:
>> One last comment and then I'll put this licensing thread 
to rest.
>> 
>> Ozone licensing is unique and clear when it comes down to
>> using its API. My code can use its API as LGPL. Even 
though my
>> code needs to run within the same JVM as the Ozone-db 
Server.
>> 
>> If I change the core and not any Ozone-db API to the 
client,
>> my changes fall under the GPL license. But does my code 
using
>> the unchanged API also fall under this license, a result 
of
>> the API running within the same JVM? I believe the answer 
is
>> no. Just the file changes to Ozone-db are ruled by GPL 
and the
>> API LGPL still holds true. Any other way would be in 
conflict.
>> 
>> The bellow link describes clearly how the licensing works 
when
>> I do not modify the core. But if I do, the core file 
changes
>> are ruled by GPL.
>> 
>> - Thomas
>> 
>> 
>> Link from www.ozone-db.org:
>> 
>> http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?
docid=7990&group_id=39695
>> 
>> 
>> Q:I'm trying to understand how Ozone is licensed. On your
>> license page it says:
>> 
>>         Ozone Library License, LGPL
>>         Ozone Core License, GPL
>> 
>> If I want to embed Ozone into another product (which 
utilizes,
>> but is not itself a database) which license am I bound by?
>> 
>> 
>> A:If you are using ozone via its APIs, then you are bound 
to
>> the API's license, which is LGPL. This basically means 
you can
>> use it freely in both commercial and non-commercial 
situations
>> and also build on top of the code and include Ozone in 
your
>> project without having to pay royalties to anyone. If you 
are
>> changing Ozone itself, then you are bound to the license 
of
>> the core files, which is GPL. This means you need to make 
your
>> code open source using a GPL license.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---- Original message ----
>> >Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 23:21:01 -0400
>> >From: <[email protected]>  
>> >Subject: [Ozone-users] Re: Tricky Ozone Licensing 
questions
>> (LGPL? or GPL?)  
>> >To: [email protected]
>> >
>> >Folks,
>> >
>> >My apologies for the second email, but I think I have 
some 
>> >answers to my question.
>> >
>> >If Ozone-db did say that my scenario was not GPL (in 
>> >reference to not adding or not yet adding my changes to 
the 
>> >distribution) but LGPL and allowed others to do the 
same, 
>> > would there be no conceptual difference between this 
and not 
>> >informing Ozone-db (i.e GNU community) of the changes at 
all?
>> >
>> >So to conclude, I either:
>> >
>> > 1) Got an individual OK from Ozone-db to personally do 
such
>> >    things
>> >
>> > 2) Have Ozone-db sourceforge.net accept me changes
>> >
>> > 3) Provide Ozone-db extensions through a site such as 
>> >    sourceforge.net under GPL
>> >
>> >- Thomas
>> >
>> >---- Original message ----
>> >>Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:55:48 -0400
>> >>From: [email protected]  
>> >>Subject: Tricky Ozone Licensing questions (LGPL? or 
GPL?)   
>> >>To: [email protected] 
>> >>
>> >>Folks,
>> >>
>> >>I know the following questions are directed to Ozone-
db's
>> >>owners/maintainers, but I thought someone else would 
find 
>> >>the answers useful. Here goes.
>> >>
>> >>I understand the licensing agreement that Ozone-db has 
put 
>> >>forth and I have read the FAQ section about this topic. 
But 
>> >>I have a situation that might complicate and/or add 
>> >>confusion to its explanation.
>> >>
>> >>What if I want to fix/add work to the Ozone-db Core 
(that I 
>> >>also want to make public) that has not yet been 
>> >>incorporated/rejected by the Ozone-db sourceforge.net 
>> >>maintainers. Lets also say that I did not make any 
changes 
>> >>to Ozone-db API class files. Since Ozone-db requires 
the 
>> >>server side JVM to load both the Ozone-db jar and my 
API 
>> >>jar, I cannot separate (into two JVMs) the Ozone-db 
Core 
>> >>from my client API application [In keeping with GPL].
>> >>
>> >>What is the ruling on this? I believe I understand GPL 
and
>> >>LGPL pretty well. I also know that the final ruling is 
up to
>> >>the persons(s) who own the code.
>> >>
>> >>Is my only salvation- to lobby my fixes/changes into 
CVS 
>> >and wait until they hopefully get added?
>> >>
>> >>It is greatly appreciated if the folks in charge could 
make
>> >>a ruling on this. Viva Ozone!
>> >>
>> >>Best Regards,
>> >>
>> >>- Thomas
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >-------------------------------------------------------
>> >This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
>> >Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, 
President
>> and CEO of
>> >GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals 
to system
>> >administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?
ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Ozone-users mailing list
>> >[email protected]
>> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ozone-users
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
>> Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, 
President and CEO of
>> GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals 
to system
>> administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?
ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ozone-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ozone-users
>-- 
>    .--.      .---------------.-----------------------------
-----------.
>   |o_o |     | Leo Mekenkamp | Free, as in 'beer' and as 
in 'speech': |
>   |:_/ |     | +31 641234919 | office software  
http://openoffice.org |
>  //   \ \    |               | 100% java odbms    
http://ozone-db.org |
> (|     | )   | Long Live Tux | e-mail & browser    
http://mozilla.org |
>/'\_   _/`\   |               | operating system      
http://linux.org |
>\___)=(___/   `---------------'-----------------------------
-----------'
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
>Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President 
and CEO of
>GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to 
system
>administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?
ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
>_______________________________________________
>Ozone-users mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ozone-users


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.