Rails - Nov 2005 - Engine Licensing, an encouraging perspective on why to start yours up

I was just talking about engines with a colleague and I came up with an
exceptional reason why Engines really are one-of-a-kind when it comes to
licensing.

As many of you may know, the GPL license states that a piece of GPL licensed
code can not be included as a library within a commercially licensed product
when is shipped to customers. It can however be included by the customer
upon installation, or packaged on the same CD as the commercially licensed
product, but not to be included until post-installation of the application,
and by the customer themselves.

I would first like to point out that there has been little to no mention in
any of the code I have seen, other than in the core Rails, as to what
license it uses, which leaves everyone out on a limb when it comes time to
understanding whether or not you can actually package your product with an
Engine, generated code, plugin, or such in it.

That being said, with the advent of Engines, they may very well soon contain
a GPL license or something similar restricting the usage of the application
license which has that code included within its core.

With the methodology in place to install an Engine, whereby you can run
"script/plugin install
svn://example.com/plugins/my_ferrari_engine/testarossa" and the engine will
be instantly deployed within that application in the
"vendor/plugins/testarossa" directory, you can require that after the
installation process of the commercial application has been completed,
install the engine with extreme ease, while still containing the overriding
functionality in your core application simply waiting for the Engine to be
dropped in.

Now, in comparison to that of a generator, which is as far as I can tell the
closest thing to providing the full scope of functionality that engines have
(models, controllers, libraries, tests, etc), when deployed it will extract
its contents all over your core application and may even overwrite files and
such as a generator has a tendency to do. An example is when you have
already run the scaffolding generator for a model/controller, and you have
previously customized your "/stylesheets/scaffold.css" layout to be
unique.
When you run the scaffold again for a new model/controller you will be
prompted to overwrite that _scaffold.css_ file. At this point, the developer
has to make the decision whether or not he/she wants the to deploy the
updated StyleSheet based on the most recent generated scaffolding code.

This specific example could be solved by having a diff merge tool option at
the time of overriding instead of having the yes/no/all prompt when it comes
to a file that already exists and whether or not to overwrite it. But that
still would leave the developer in this case, with the merge to handle on
their own, which may or may not have conflicts.

So with that in mind, the generators result could not be included by default
if it had anything other than a LGPL/MIT or compatibly commercially Zen
license. And if you were to run the generator afterwards, as explained
above, you would have to deal with conflicting files or complex scenario
analysis when deploying to ensure that no files are overwritten or are
properly overridden by secondary controllers and models within the same
/app/controllers/ and /app/models respective directories.

So as a result, you find yourself, with an Engine that has a GPL or some
other license that still has some rights reserved by the author when it
comes to re-licensing that sub-application, easily deployable after the fact
of sale to your customer with a 100% commercial license that still allows
for GPL software to be utilized in a symbiotic fashion.

This conclusion does leave the GPL licensors at a loss if they do in-fact
refuse to have their application included in a commercial application.
Personally, I would be more apt to have more usage than less. As Bruce
Perens said in an interview with me previously, its not the generic code
that makes your business sink or swim, it''s the 10% differentiating
code
that separates yourself, and allows you to soar. If businesses can spend
more time on the uniqueness of their product rather than on the basic
requirements of any application such as login/ACL/etc, the products would be
better, and result in far greater usefulness of the tools we use ever day.

For those that have heard little about Engines and want to know more, visit:
http://rails-engines.rubyforge.org/

Warmest regards,
Nathan.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel S. H. Brown                 Toll Free 1.877.4.INIMIT
Inimit Innovations                        Phone   604.724.6624
www.inimit.com                              Fax   604.444.9942

As far as I know, *none* of the "open source" licenses have *ever*
been
tested in a court of law. So the so-called "rights" one has when one 
"uses" the GPL, either by granting it or accepting it, may not in fact
exist.

In short,

a. You are free to give away your own intellectual property, as long as 
you realize that someone might come along, as SCO did, and claim it was 
not yours to give away, requiring you to spend money defending yourself.

b. You are *not* free to give away someone else''s intellectual
property,
even if you didn''t know at the time you did that it was someone
else''s.
*You* are obligated to do the research.

c. Many corporations view the GPL as a *contaminant* in their releases 
as a result of a. and b. -- having any GPL software in close association 
with their proprietary software exposes them to *huge* financial and 
legal risks.

So ... once we''ve sorted out all the intellectual propery issues 
associated with the GPL, we can move on to the more interesting 
questions about how viable business models are that blur the rather 
sharp distinction, at least in the USA, of for-profit (Red Hat) and 
not-for-profit (Fedora Foundation) organizations. And yet another 
interesting question -- when will some for-profit organization "adopt"
the two major not-for-profit distros, Debian and Gentoo?

I''m sure DHH has all this worked out for Rails and the projects he
built
upon Rails and abstracted Rails from. But how about larger projects?
I''m
embarking on some Rails and Ruby projects, one of which will in fact be 
a "commercial" one. DHH, any comments on the GPL -- and the Ruby 
license, which differs from the GPL in some subtle ways I don''t
understand?

I was originally planning to base it on an existing package (running on 
the LAMP stack) which does *exactly* what I want, but the prospect of 
having to teach a lawyer programming wasn''t particulary exciting. I may
still use that package because it''s well known and they''ve
established a
partner program with commercial users. But I''m leaning towards doing 
something a lot simpler based on Rails and sqlite.

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> As far as I know, *none* of the "open source" licenses have
*ever* been
> tested in a court of law. So the so-called "rights" one has when
one
> "uses" the GPL, either by granting it or accepting it, may not in
fact
> exist.
''Fraid they do.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/20/1082395838556.html?oneclick=true

Translation of the ruling:
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf
> I''m sure DHH has all this worked out for Rails and the projects he
built
> upon Rails and abstracted Rails from. But how about larger projects?
I''m
> embarking on some Rails and Ruby projects, one of which will in fact be
> a "commercial" one. DHH, any comments on the GPL -- and the Ruby
> license, which differs from the GPL in some subtle ways I don''t
understand?
(I know I''m not DHH, but still...)

Surely the Ruby licence is irrelevant?  It''s the Rails licence which is
relevant, and that''s MIT-licenced, so you can do almost anything with
it.

The GPL is even *less* relevant, because there''s nothing essential in
the stack that requires it, and anything brought in would be clearly
identified as such.

The main difference between the GPL and the Ruby licence that I could
see was that you''re allowed to distribute your modified binaries
without
the source.

-- 
Alex

On 17.11.2005, at 16.03, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>
> I''m sure DHH has all this worked out for Rails and the projects he
> built upon Rails and abstracted Rails from. But how about larger  
> projects? I''m embarking on some Rails and Ruby projects, one of  
> which will in fact be a "commercial" one. DHH, any comments on
the
> GPL -- and the Ruby license, which differs from the GPL in some  
> subtle ways I don''t understand?
It''s not subtle ways, it''s indeed quite fundamental. So, in
David''s
own words [1]:

<snip>
One of the stances we have taken with Ruby on Rails is to release the  
whole thing under MIT license, which basically just says: “You can do  
whatever you want, just don’t sue us.”
</snip>

So the difference is that GPL says anything derived from that code  
will have to be released under GPL, too. There is no such restriction  
in BSD or MIT licenses.

//jarkko

[1] http://jlaine.net/blog/83/interview-with-david-heinemeier-hansson
>
> I was originally planning to base it on an existing package  
> (running on the LAMP stack) which does *exactly* what I want, but  
> the prospect of having to teach a lawyer programming wasn''t  
> particulary exciting. I may still use that package because it''s  
> well known and they''ve established a partner program with  
> commercial users. But I''m leaning towards doing something a lot  
> simpler based on Rails and sqlite.
>
> -- 
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
>
> http://linuxcapacityplanning.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
--
Jarkko Laine
http://jlaine.net
http://odesign.fi



_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

Alex Young wrote:
>M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>  
>
>>As far as I know, *none* of the "open source" licenses have
*ever* been
>>tested in a court of law. So the so-called "rights" one has
when one
>>"uses" the GPL, either by granting it or accepting it, may not
in fact
>>exist.
>>    
>>
>''Fraid they do.
>
>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/20/1082395838556.html?oneclick=true
>  
>
This is behind a registration page, so I can''t read it without giving 
away private information. So ... I''ll take your word for it.
>Translation of the ruling:
>http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf
>  
>
That was a little more interesting. Of course, it appears to have been 
in a German court, not one in the USA. I''m curious how the German
courts
deal with the issues of MP3 royalties. :) So ... yes ... the GPL *has* 
been tested and apparently upheld in *a* court of law, so I stand corrected.
>>I''m sure DHH has all this worked out for Rails and the projects
he built
>>upon Rails and abstracted Rails from. But how about larger projects?
I''m
>>embarking on some Rails and Ruby projects, one of which will in fact be
>>a "commercial" one. DHH, any comments on the GPL -- and the
Ruby
>>license, which differs from the GPL in some subtle ways I don''t
understand?
>>    
>>
>
>(I know I''m not DHH, but still...)
>
>Surely the Ruby licence is irrelevant?  It''s the Rails licence
which is
>relevant, and that''s MIT-licenced, so you can do almost anything
with it.
>  
>
I''m not sure the Ruby license is irrelevant, since the product must, to
be a product, not have external dependencies. In other words, I can''t 
package a Rails app and say to a customer, "This is my product --
you''ll
have to install Linux, Apache, MySQL and Ruby and agree to their 
licenses before you can use it." MySQL is rather irrelevant; I
don''t
like their license and will either use SQLite or PostgreSQL, depending 
on the database requirements. And Apache will be irrelevant if WEBrick 
will do what I need -- and I''m guessing it will.

So that means at a bare minimum, to deliver a complete application, I 
need to package my application, Rails and Ruby, probably in a Windows 
and Linux form. I don''t have a Mac to test on and I don''t have
the funds
to get one. So the Ruby license is very relevant in this case.

>The GPL is even *less* relevant, because there''s nothing essential
in
>the stack that requires it, and anything brought in would be clearly
>identified as such.
>  
>
Well, Linux for one is GPL :). As long as I don''t have to
"package"
Linux, for example, by distributing my application as a LiveCD, I guess 
the GPL is irrelevant. But ... I''m seriously considering exactly that
--
a LiveCD. So ... guess what? The GPL *is* relevant! :)
>The main difference between the GPL and the Ruby licence that I could
>see was that you''re allowed to distribute your modified binaries
without
>the source.
>  
>
Thanks! I''m not sure I need to distribute "modified
binaries", although
for the Windows users, I''d be a non-starter if I required any 
compilation steps for a user. So there would be binaries in that case.

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Alex Young wrote:
> 
>> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
<snip>
>> ''Fraid they do.
>>
>>
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/20/1082395838556.html?oneclick=true
>>
> This is behind a registration page, so I can''t read it without
giving
> away private information. So ... I''ll take your word for it.
That''s funny...  I got to it from a google search.  I''ll see
if I can
dig it up again, but it''s only a brief piece about the ruling below.
>> Translation of the ruling:
>> http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf
>>  
>>
> That was a little more interesting. Of course, it appears to have been 
> in a German court, not one in the USA. I''m curious how the German
courts
> deal with the issues of MP3 royalties. :) 
Funnily enough...
http://www.toytownmunich.com/lofi/index.php/t19284.html

> I''m not sure the Ruby license is irrelevant, since the product
must, to
> be a product, not have external dependencies.  In other words, I
can''t
> package a Rails app and say to a customer, "This is my product --
you''ll
> have to install Linux, Apache, MySQL and Ruby and agree to their 
> licenses before you can use it." MySQL is rather irrelevant; I
don''t
> like their license and will either use SQLite or PostgreSQL, depending 
> on the database requirements. And Apache will be irrelevant if WEBrick 
> will do what I need -- and I''m guessing it will.
I really don''t follow your logic here.  All products have external 
dependencies.  You certainly *can* package a Rails app and say
"You''ll
need a functional Ruby stack before you can use it," in exactly the same 
way as you can say "Here''s a word processor.  You''ll need
a functional
version of Windows before you can use it."  Any software has a licence 
agreement attached to it.  If you''re selling a word processor,
you''re
insisting that the user must have agreed to the licence for the 
operating system it runs on, be that a BSD licence, the GPL, or a 
Windows EULA.

If installing the stack is not something your customers are willing to 
swallow, you can either package the whole stack, meeting the licence 
requirements of each of the parts in turn, or host it for them and 
sidestep the entire licensing issue completely.  It''s not your customer
that would have to agree to the licences of (to take your example) 
Linux, Apache, MySQL and Ruby, unless you''re planning on allowing them 
to redistribute your work.  The GPL explicitly excludes any claim over 
running the code, and only covers distribution.  The Apache licence is 
similar, but the exclusion is implicit.  MySQL is private-licenced, but 
PostgreSQL is BSD-licenced, with no use restrictions, SQLite is public 
domain, and Ruby gives you the option to use the GPL rather than its own 
licence - but that makes no claims over use restriction either.
> So that means at a bare minimum, to deliver a complete application, I 
> need to package my application, Rails and Ruby, probably in a Windows 
> and Linux form. I don''t have a Mac to test on and I don''t
have the funds
> to get one. So the Ruby license is very relevant in this case.
That''s a different question to the one I was considering.  The question
was: "Given this third-party generator/plugin/engine/whatever, can I 
continue to distribute my application under my current licencing scheme 
if I include it in my code?"  As far as I could tell, that was the 
perspective of the original posting, and is completely independent from 
the licence of anything lower down in the stack.
>> The GPL is even *less* relevant, because there''s nothing
essential in
>> the stack that requires it, and anything brought in would be clearly
>> identified as such.
>>  
>>
> Well, Linux for one is GPL :). As long as I don''t have to
"package"
> Linux, for example, by distributing my application as a LiveCD, I guess 
> the GPL is irrelevant. But ... I''m seriously considering exactly
that --
> a LiveCD. So ... guess what? The GPL *is* relevant! :)
Note my careful choice of words...  There''s nothing *essential* in the 
stack that requires it.  Linux can happily be replaced with a non-GPL''d
OS, even for a LiveCD.  But seriously - is it really that hard to meet 
the conditions of the GPL?  Bear in mind that it can apply to all levels 
below your code, and leave you with room for an entirely separate 
licence for your application code.
>> The main difference between the GPL and the Ruby licence that I could
>> see was that you''re allowed to distribute your modified
binaries without
>> the source.
>>  
>>
> Thanks! I''m not sure I need to distribute "modified
binaries", although
> for the Windows users, I''d be a non-starter if I required any 
> compilation steps for a user. So there would be binaries in that case.
> 
And if you''re supplying unmodified binaries, you need to supply the
code
- or at least tell the user where they can find it.  In Ruby''s case,
all
you''ve got to do is include a link to http://www.ruby-lang.org
somewhere
in your documentation, and include copyright attribution.  That''s it. 
You don''t even need to include the source code.  That would also cover 
anything under the GPL, by a certain reading of clause 3b.

That ended up longer than I intended :-)

-- 
Alex