what defines source code in (A)GPL ?

[Harri Saarikoski]

> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:55:16 -0700
> Subject: Re: what defines source code in (A)GPL ?
> From: ben at reser.org
> To: harriers at windowslive.com
> CC: andrew.wilson at intel.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
> 
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Harri Saarikoski
> <harriers at windowslive.com> wrote:
> > I'm slightly confused. First I seem to be given leeway, that Idea is yours
> > while Code is open source.
> > I.e. no rival will copy the Idea, only plagiarism allowed is the revised
> > code (under one framework).
> > Then something is attempted to be taken aback from that true argument by way
> > of stating the obvious (already understood),
> > i.e. that users of the revised code (the original framework under which the
> > innovation was implemented)
> > stand to gain every right from the innovation.
> 
> It all depends upon the open source license(s) that you're operating
> under.  If the license has no patent grant then you can release the
> source code under that license while patenting the method it uses and
> expect to limit those that use it.  In some cases as has already been
> pointed out to you it may not be clear if a particular license has a
> patent grant or not.

AGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html is the license of the based work.
It seems to grant patenting rights of based works. 

Then again, people here keep saying patenting is not a guarantee.
However, consulting some sources here on SW patents says it's in the *way of words*
that you compose the patent document that SW can be validly patented.

I.e. that the SW has 'technical' influence on 'outside world' in terms of superior quality 
in what it does. Any feat of engineering that does sth better can be patented, 
should think reasonable thinking applies more than artificial separation of SW from 
other works.

> 
> For the most part the effort to prevent patents from "infecting" open
> source software is a relatively recent effort.  Many older licenses
> make no effort to really speak to the issue.  However, I would argue
> that doing what you are describing has always been against the open
> source spirit.
> 
> If you really want limitations on who can use your software, then open
> source licensing is really not what you're looking for.

Perhaps not, but it's the world I grew on. I believe in it, whole heartedly.
I wouldn't be here without OS software.

I understand open source normally doesn't invite 'rogue elements' of abuse
and that it works because of it. Should point out, however, that this innovation
is definitely something that MS and IBM are interested in copying (more innovative = more prone to copying), 
so are my rights to my own work by definition less important than those of MS and IBM
(who, whenever they innovate something, think of nothing to share) ?

Seems, with all due respect, the default expectation regarding OS vs proprietary 
issues

is that the owner of the new software is 'up to no good', always seeking to 
benefit self only.

What I ultimately want is for no license to tell me what is the correct thing to do, 

and * then (and mainly then) to release it out of my own volition as open source *
not because I have to but because it is the right thing to do. 

Self-inflicted "no monopoly to me" should imply "no monopoly to no one else either", right?



If I decide to release it as OS, I guess I can only expect (i.e. not be sure) that some kind of fairness is implemented for my eight year 
research
i.e. that I be not unduly penalised for wanting it to be open source and thus getting maximal exposure for it.
This original question remains unanswered: Under AGPL, can the proprietary Oracle copy 
from my OS mysql+ distribution

the feature that makes databases work better ? (actual application 
domain here is as said not databases, just an example)


In AGPL, I find no section concerning that.
best, Harri 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20100713/dd31e43b/attachment.html>