Luca,

The case of something like mySQL is quite different. For starts people
do not really code using the "mySql API" or using the mySQL
libraries. They develop using JDBC which is not GPL.

Your appServer or whatever other server environment will then load the
classes using introspection. I.e. the server code is not really aware
of whether you are using mySQL, Oracle or whatever. (I think this the
only way to escape GPL infection in Java)

Usually, people ask you to download mySQL by yourself. It is not
bundled on the installation, so that you do not get infected with the
license issues.

The case of DDR may be similar, but only if W3C where to supply the
library with the interfaces for DDR Simple API non-GPL. Then users may
be able to use Juan Manuel's implementation based on WURFL without
infecting their own code. Even though, Juan Manuel's code will have to
be distributed under GPL (he will have no option).

But since the WURFL API is proprietary any code using it will be GPL
infected. Yes, if you only used the code for in house development
(which it just happens to be my situation at the moment), then there
are no issues. But if one builds anything that want to be distributed,
even if WURFL is not the may point of the application, then the only
options the person will have is either open-source all its work, or
replace WURFL API with a clean-lab implementation for accessing the
WURFL data. Which means fragmentation.

This is why there are LGPL, APL and other open source licenses. They
specify that one need to provide access to the source of the
open-sourced WURFL; some will also require to contribute back and
open-sourced any changes made to the code, but for the rest of the
application it is up to the owner to decide what to do about its own
intellectual property.

BTW all this issues are even more of a problem in Java. In C which is
where most of the GPL code is written you have DLL and such that can
be used to isolate API from your own code.

Using APL does allow you to offer a commercial license with every
other additional functionalities or guarantees. That is the way the
Apache Software Foundation works (APL). And why the Apache Java
projects are the most used open-source libraries in Java.

Jose Alberto

--- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
>
> Andrea Trasatti wrote:
> > I suppose it will depend on how people will use your code, but if
> > they make your API part of a bigger application they might have to
> > open-source the application.
> >
> No. They won't. You need to release your code as GPL only if you
> redistribute your application. MySQL is distributed under GPL and this
> has not prevented companies big and small from using it (which includes
> google and yahoo) without having to open source their code.
> > Also, if they decide to extend the API, all the software built on
top
> > of yours will have to be open-sourced.
> >
> also not true.
> > I am not saying this is bad, WURFL has always meant to be open-
> > source, but certainly might generate some issues, especially for
> > consultants and companies using their software. They will have to
> > carefully consider the new licensing.
> >
> Sure. Anyway, if GPL is a problem for a company, a little cash will fix
> it. Also, the plan is to discount the price of the commercial license
> for those who buy consulting services from my company.
>
> Luca
>
> > - Andrea
> >
> >
> > Il giorno 16/apr/08, alle ore 16:09, Luca Passani ha scritto:
> >
> >> People, I am still defining the details around the licensing, so
> >> discussing is OK. Before you say anything, though, consider the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> - GPL is by far the most widely used license for open-source projects
> >>
> >> - GPL does not force you to redistribute anything, unless you are
> >> including it into a commercial product that you are
> >> reselling/redistributing and which is not GPL.
> >> This means that if you work as a consultant for a customer, you and
> >> your customer will be able to use the API without paying a dime.
> >>
> >> - If you do not want to be bound by the terms of the GPL for any
> >> reason,
> >> I am planning to offer the API with a commercial license for a fee,
> >> which would effectively solve the problem.
> >>
> >> - This economic side to the project is what allows me to be on WURFL
> >> full time and to create/maintain a better API for everyone.
> >>
> >> Finally, I was advised to license WURFL under AGPL (
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License ) and I
> >> said
> >> no exactly because I wanted regular consulting company to be able
> >> to use
> >> it for their services without having to pay for it.
> >>
> >> Of course, GPL only applies to the APIs. Not the data, which,
> >> according
> >> to US laws, cannot be copyrighted.
> >>
> >> Luca
> >>
> >> Vjekoslav Nesek wrote:
> >>
> >>> Luca, Jose,
> >>>
> >>> My understanding of Java + GPL is that if you use any GPL ... your
> >>> whole
> >>> application
> >>> has to be released under GPL. You can keep it proprietary if and
> >>> only if
> >>> it's a hosted
> >>> service and not something that you ship to customers in which case
> >>> you
> >>> are required
> >>> to release a whole source under GPL to a public.
> >>>
> >>> As WURFL and WALL are components, GPL is really limiting and I'm
> >>> certain
> >>> that
> >>> a lot of companies will refrain from using it. Luca, please consider
> >>> using LGPL or
> >>> better yet APL or some BSD variant. IMHO by going GPL you'll not
> >>> gain a
> >>> lot but
> >>> it'll certainly help fragmentation of APIs that use WURFL data.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> BR,
> >>> Vjekoslav Nesek
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Luca,
> >>>>
> >>>> Would it be possible for the License (or one of the available
> >>>> licenses
> >>>> ) to be at least LGPL, Apache or something of the sort?
> >>>>
> >>>> As I understand the legalese of GPL, it is an infectious license.
> >>>> Any
> >>>> code distributed that uses any GPL licensed library has to be
> >>>> licensed
> >>>> under GPL. Which means that if I build something that uses WURFL I
> >>>> would be forced to give ALL of my original work for free and under
> >>>> GPL. Even if you ask people to download the WURFL classes
separately
> >>>> the fact that one's code links to GLP libraries causes the license
> >>>> infection to happen.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a particular problem with Java code as the code would at
> >>>> least mention the interface classes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Has anyone been phased with this kinds of issues when layers
look at
> >>>> how to license your own original work? In particular in the US I
> >>>> have
> >>>> heard of people needing to remove and replace GPL code with other
> >>>> implementations that are more commercially friendly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jose Alberto
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from
WMLProgramming!
> >> Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/
> >> before you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
> > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/
before you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>