Releasing an Oracle PL/SQL Web Toolkit application under the GPL
Mark Rittman
I've developed a discussion board application that runs on the Oracle 8.1.7.
Databaseand uses the Oracle PL/SQL toolkit and the Apache HTTP Server. I've
had good feedback about it so far, and i'd like to release the sourcecode
under the GPL.
If you aren't aware of it, the GPL (more details at
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) basically allows redistribution of the
code, changes to be made to it, and so on (i.e. the program is Open Source),
with no warranty or guarantee.
Has anyone else done this? Can you release a program (a series of packages)
via the GPL, where the system it depends upon (Oracle) is closed-source,
proprietary software? Or does its reliance on Oracle mean it cannot be free
software?
Many thanks
Mark Rittman
plus consultancy UK
Austin Ziegler
It can be GPLed, more's the pity. See Steve Feuerstein's excellent utPLSQL
kit for an example.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
-----------------* I speak for myself alone
Pete Finnigan
There is also now an O'Reilly book on Open source Oracle software /
programming, i realise there is a difference between open source and
GPL, but it may be worth a look, i have not looked at it myself.
cheers
Pete Finnigan
www.pentest-limited.com
In article <Pine.GSU.4.05.101083...@psyche.the-
wire.com>, Austin Ziegler <azie...@the-wire.com> writes
>On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Mark Rittman wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> I've developed a discussion board application that runs on the Oracle 8.1.7.
>> Databaseand uses the Oracle PL/SQL toolkit and the Apache HTTP Server. I've
>> had good feedback about it so far, and i'd like to release the sourcecode
>> under the GPL.
>>
>> If you aren't aware of it, the GPL (more details at
>> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) basically allows redistribution of the
>> code, changes to be made to it, and so on (i.e. the program is Open Source),
>> with no warranty or guarantee.
>>
>> Has anyone else done this? Can you release a program (a series of packages)
>> via the GPL, where the system it depends upon (Oracle) is closed-source,
>> proprietary software? Or does its reliance on Oracle mean it cannot be free
>> software?
>
>It can be GPLed, more's the pity. See Steve Feuerstein's excellent utPLSQL
>kit for an example.
>
>-f
--
Pete Finnigan
IT Security Consultant
PenTest Limited
Office 01565 830 990
Fax 01565 830 889
Mobile 07974 087 885
Mark Rittman
I took a look at Steve's site and noted that it is released as Open Source,
but couldn't see if the license used was the GPL. From what I know about the
author's political views, though, I imagine this would be the case!
Just as an aside, why did you say 'more's the pity' when mentionin the GPL?
It seems a good way of putting some useful code into the public domain.
Thanks
Mark
"Austin Ziegler" <azie...@the-wire.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.05.101083...@psyche.the-wire.com...
Mark Rittman
I've just had some feedback from someone who points out that issuing the
program under the GPL actually limits it's usefulness to other oracle
developers. If this is the case, and given that I'm geniunely trying to put
some code out to be of use to other people, what course of action should I
follow?
Would you suggest actually not licensing it, just putting it out 'as is'?
How do I do this without any comeback to myself incase the program causes
problems for someone?
thanks
Mark
"Mark Rittman" <mark.r...@orange.net> wrote in message
news:9msv0m$10b$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Peter Seebach
Mark Rittman <mark.r...@orange.net> wrote:
>Just as an aside, why did you say 'more's the pity' when mentionin the GPL?
>It seems a good way of putting some useful code into the public domain.
It doesn't, however, put the code "into the public domain" - that would mean
that anyone could use it, for any reason, with no restrictions. While that's
clearly the maximally free state, it doesn't provide the incentive towards
making *other* code free that the GPL is intended to provide.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
+--- Need quality network services, server-grade computers, or a shell? ---+
v C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! v
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Galen Boyer
> I've just had some feedback from someone who points out that
> issuing the program under the GPL actually limits it's
> usefulness to other oracle developers.
I don't understand how this is the case. Can you explain the
feedback you recieved in more detail?
GPL is very compatible in a for-profit environment. What one
can't do is extend the GPL'd code and then call it their own.
What you can do, though, is include GPL'd code as part of a
for-profit package, although you are required to make the code
for the GPL'd code available to the purchaser. I don't know the
ruling on your code, but if you are like me, the customer paid
for me on a contract and they therefore own the code anyways. To
me, you get the best of both worlds here.
Also, for Oracle systems integrators/developers/DBA's, which is
probably most everybody on this list, one can still make fine
money installing and configuring and teaching GPL'd code, as well
as help extending it.
> If this is the case, and given that I'm geniunely trying to put
> some code out to be of use to other people, what course of
> action should I follow?
I would say GPL'd code would be very nice.
--
Galen Boyer
It seems to me, I remember every single thing I know.
Galen Boyer
> It doesn't, however, put the code "into the public domain" -
> that would mean that anyone could use it, for any reason, with
> no restrictions.
I believe the only "restriction" there is, is that one cannot
take GPL'd code, extend it, lay claim to the new code as your
own, package it as your own, and then sell it, which would
therefore restrict that version of the software for any further
enhancements by future users.
So, the GPL is preventing commercial restriction by having the
GPL restriction. I don't see any other restrictions.
> While that's clearly the maximally free state, it doesn't
> provide the incentive towards making *other* code free that the
> GPL is intended to provide.
There are many incentives to making code free, and monetary can
be one of them. You can then make money installing, configuring,
teaching and extending for different customers. But, I believe
the biggest incentive for the developers of GPL'd software is the
very serious "hobby" aspect of it. They love to work with other
developers and continually build and improve the software they
use.
Austin Ziegler
> Thanks Austin,
>
> I took a look at Steve's site and noted that it is released as Open Source,
> but couldn't see if the license used was the GPL. From what I know about the
> author's political views, though, I imagine this would be the case!
http://oracle.oreilly.com/utplsql/news/news.html has a mention that it's
under the GPL.
> Just as an aside, why did you say 'more's the pity' when mentionin the GPL?
> It seems a good way of putting some useful code into the public domain.
First, it's not "public domain;" second, it's IMO one of the worst of
the available so-called "free" or open source licences. Far better to
use the LGPL if you really insist upon spreading the FSF's
socio-political vision, because at least at that point you're not
buying into the FSF's useless and illogical restrictions.
Better yet, consider something like the MPL or the equivalent.
Austin Ziegler
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, mark.r...@orange.net wrote:
>> I've just had some feedback from someone who points out that
>> issuing the program under the GPL actually limits it's
>> usefulness to other oracle developers.
> I don't understand how this is the case. Can you explain the
> feedback you recieved in more detail?
>
> GPL is very compatible in a for-profit environment. What one
> can't do is extend the GPL'd code and then call it their own.
> What you can do, though, is include GPL'd code as part of a
> for-profit package, although you are required to make the code
> for the GPL'd code available to the purchaser. I don't know the
> ruling on your code, but if you are like me, the customer paid
> for me on a contract and they therefore own the code anyways. To
> me, you get the best of both worlds here.
Actually, if you include GPLed code within a commercial package, the
WHOLE package must be released as GPLed. Your statement is incorrect;
additionally, the customer may not like the code that you've written to
be GPLed because it also means that you can keep a copy of the code
(legally) even though it is theirs. If you want your own approach, use
the LGPL -- or better yet, a much better licence like the MPL.
Galen Boyer
> Actually, if you include GPLed code within a commercial
> package, the WHOLE package must be released as GPLed. Your
> statement is incorrect; additionally,
Hm... I thought I understood it, but it has been a long time
since I read any of the licensing prose.
I went back into it and found at the bottom,
,----
| This General Public License does not permit incorporating your
| program into proprietary programs. If your program is a
| subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit
| linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is
| what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License
| instead of this License.
`----
So, it looks like you are correct.
> the customer may not like the code that you've written to be
> GPLed because it also means that you can keep a copy of the
> code (legally) even though it is theirs.
Really? Hm... That is definitely different than I believed I
learned early on, but then, I've never developed GPL'd code, just
used it. I didn't find the section in the GPL which stated this
either way, definitively. Can you point me to it?
I thought a customer could pay you to do an extension and then it
was theirs. But, they couldn't go out and get a patent on the
extension, the GPL'd code or the package.
I guess the fact that it is GPL'd with your definition would meet
a FSF's idea even better. When one has extensions done to
software, and then hoards it, then the rest of the software users
do not benefit. I can see how the FSF would follow this to your
definition. I just can't find it.
Stefaan A Eeckels
Austin Ziegler <azie...@the-wire.com> writes:
> On 2 Sep 2001, Galen Boyer wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, mark.r...@orange.net wrote:
>>> I've just had some feedback from someone who points out that
>>> issuing the program under the GPL actually limits it's
>>> usefulness to other oracle developers.
>> I don't understand how this is the case. Can you explain the
>> feedback you recieved in more detail?
>>
>> GPL is very compatible in a for-profit environment. What one
>> can't do is extend the GPL'd code and then call it their own.
>> What you can do, though, is include GPL'd code as part of a
>> for-profit package, although you are required to make the code
>> for the GPL'd code available to the purchaser. I don't know the
>> ruling on your code, but if you are like me, the customer paid
>> for me on a contract and they therefore own the code anyways. To
>> me, you get the best of both worlds here.
>
> Actually, if you include GPLed code within a commercial package, the
> WHOLE package must be released as GPLed. Your statement is incorrect;
Not if the package is an aggregation. For instance, it's quite
OK to bundle gdb with a non-GPLed graphical front end, or write
a GPLed GUI for a debugger with a commercial license such as dbx.
> additionally, the customer may not like the code that you've written to
> be GPLed because it also means that you can keep a copy of the code
> (legally) even though it is theirs. If you want your own approach, use
> the LGPL -- or better yet, a much better licence like the MPL.
If you've written software for someone else, and the contract
stipulates that the copyright is theirs, then it is the decision
of your customer to release the package under the GPL, and
distribute it (to you). _If_ the customer lets you keep the
copyright, there is in any case nothing they can do to stop you
from re-using the code in whatever way you please.
The MPL is great when there is a central authority interested in
guiding the project, and keeping control over forks or other
derivatives. The GPL is better if you're looking for a developer
community that adopts the project, and the originator isn't able
or willing to continue supporting it, but hopes to benefit from
its continued development. BSDL is great if you're interested in
seeing your code used in as many places as possible.
--
Stefaan
--
Please visit our Webster http://xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx, write or e-mail to X&x
promptly,if you are interested.And X&x shall be pleased to render you any
further services. -- Spam from China
Mark Rittman
I'll take a look at the LGPL and the MPL as suggested.
Is it possible to just put the code out, without any specific license, if I
just want it to be public domain? Is there any comeback if it causes a
problem for someone?
thanks
Mark
"Austin Ziegler" <azie...@the-wire.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.05.101090...@psyche.the-wire.com...
Iain Barker
"Galen Boyer" <galen...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:uy9nwn...@verizon.net...
>
> I've never developed GPL'd code, just used it. I didn't find the
> section in the GPL which stated this either way, definitively.
> Can you point me to it?
>
> I thought a customer could pay you to do an extension and then it
> was theirs. But, they couldn't go out and get a patent on the
> extension, the GPL'd code or the package.
In the example you give, a customer can pay for such an extension to GPL'd
code
and there is no problem, so long as the extended version is used internally
by the
customer, not distributed external to their organisation.
If the customer wants to distribute the code outside their organisation,
they must
provide the source code to the executable image under the GPL terms (either
packaged along with the binary or available via mail order).
If your customer were to distribute the binary without providing GPL'd
source code to the
whole, including the extensions you wrote for them under contract, then they
are in violation
of the GPL terms that applied to the code you extended on their behalf.
At that point, the customer is no longer licensed to use the GPL code at
all, and therefore
any such use is a breach of copyright and therefore illegal.
So, by performing proprietary extensions to existing GPL code for the
customer, the
liability that you have to them is actually increased rather than reduced.
As a contract
programmer in such an example, I would tend to avoid such situation or at
least make
sure the ramifications of the GPL are clearly stated in your contract with
them.
Iain Barker
> section in the GPL which stated this either way, definitively.
> Can you point me to it?
>
> I thought a customer could pay you to do an extension and then it
> was theirs. But, they couldn't go out and get a patent on the
> extension, the GPL'd code or the package.
In the example you give, a customer can pay for such an extension to GPL'd
Florian Weimer
> Actually, if you include GPLed code within a commercial package, the
> WHOLE package must be released as GPLed.
Is Microsoft Interix GPLed? No. Is Microsoft violating the GPL? No.
Mere aggregation is of course acceptable.
Peter Seebach
Galen Boyer <galen...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>On 02 Sep 2001, se...@plethora.net wrote:
>> It doesn't, however, put the code "into the public domain" -
>> that would mean that anyone could use it, for any reason, with
>> no restrictions.
>I believe the only "restriction" there is, is that one cannot
>take GPL'd code, extend it, lay claim to the new code as your
>own, package it as your own, and then sell it, which would
>therefore restrict that version of the software for any further
>enhancements by future users.
Nor can you merge it with code under many of the other licenses out there.
For instance, imagine a license similar to the GPL, but in which the Preamble
to the GPL has been replaced with something else; let's call it the HPL. The
HPL requires, just as the GPL does, that code licensed under it be distributed
with it. Since the HPL is requiring you to distribute code with a thing which
is not required when you distribute GPL'd code, it is "more restrictive", so
you may not distribute GPL'd and HPL'd code together without some kind of
relicensing.
You are also forbidden from placing anything based on GPL'd work in the
public domain. This means you can't really give it away.
Peter Seebach
Mark Rittman <mrit...@yourplus.com> wrote:
>Is it possible to just put the code out, without any specific license, if I
>just want it to be public domain?
Sure. Just put something in it saying you are placing it in the public
domain, remove all copyright notices, and be happy.
>Is there any comeback if it causes a
>problem for someone?
Same deal as always; put in a thing saying there's no warranty.
IANAL, you should probably check with a lawyer, etc.
brl...@my-deja.com
> For instance, imagine a license similar to the GPL, but in which the
> Preamble to the GPL has been replaced with something else; let's call
> it the HPL. The HPL requires, just as the GPL does, that code
> licensed under it be distributed with it. Since the HPL is requiring
> you to distribute code with a thing which is not required when you
> distribute GPL'd code, it is "more restrictive", so you may not
> distribute GPL'd and HPL'd code together without some kind of
> relicensing.
Not true. In this case, the HPL is part of an "appropriate copyright
notice" for the derived work. Section 1 of the GPL requires that you
include it. If none of the terms of the HPL are "further restrictions"
(Section 6) beyond those imposed by the GPL, there is no conflict.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to brl...@my-deja.com
Peter Seebach
>se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes:
>> For instance, imagine a license similar to the GPL, but in which the
>> Preamble to the GPL has been replaced with something else; let's call
>> it the HPL. The HPL requires, just as the GPL does, that code
>> licensed under it be distributed with it. Since the HPL is requiring
>> you to distribute code with a thing which is not required when you
>> distribute GPL'd code, it is "more restrictive", so you may not
>> distribute GPL'd and HPL'd code together without some kind of
>> relicensing.
>Not true. In this case, the HPL is part of an "appropriate copyright
>notice" for the derived work. Section 1 of the GPL requires that you
>include it. If none of the terms of the HPL are "further restrictions"
>(Section 6) beyond those imposed by the GPL, there is no conflict.
It's not a copyright notice, it's a screed attached to a license. Imagine
that the HPL's Preamble consists of a series of death threats and swear
words. The requirement that you include these *in addition to the copyright
notice* is a requirement above and beyond the requirements of the GPL, even
though it's precisely the same sort of requirement as the GPL imposes.
I don't think it's fair to say that the preamble is part of "an appropriate
copyright notice". It's a piece of political baggage tied to a license.
brl...@my-deja.com
> It's not a copyright notice, it's a screed attached to a license.
The preamble is part of the copyright notice. For more about preambles,
see
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/