Hi Brads,
I appreciate your concerns, but you seem to be drawing many conclusions too
fast while being a bit uninformed. Reporting real issues is great, drawing
conclusions too fast not necessarily is.
If you haven't read it already, please read the wiki article about the
license change: http://www.freerdp.com/wiki/doku.php?id=license_change
<http://www.freerdp.com/wiki/doku.php?id=license_change>First, you keep
referring to MIT, while we're moving to Apache. In the end, most of our code
base will be Apache, with some exceptions like the asn1c-generated code that
is under an acceptable license for us.
Also, in a previous email, you are referring to rdesktop as GPLv3, which is
right for the latest versions of rdesktop. The original rdesktop sources
from which we forked were under GPLv2. Just a precision here in case you
didn't know. In both cases, approval from the original author is still
required for relicensing.
In a previous email you have also drawn the conclusion that if some files
were originally GPL, they are "not ok". Jay already corrected you, but this
shows that you might have missed the part where we actually asked for the
author's permission on those files for relicensing them to the Apache
license. A license describes the conditions under which copyrighted work may
be used: the copyright holder can decide to relicense his work and provide
it to you under different conditions if he wishes. However, in open source
projects, copyrighted material comes from different sources, so you must get
the approval of all concerned parties in order to change the license.
Something interesting to report would be a code snippet that originates from
someone that did not agree to the license change. THAT is something we're
looking for. A list of copyright holders that have agreed to the license
change is given on the wiki, if you find anything from a different copyright
holder in FreeRDP that would potentially be in an unsuitable license for us
(that is, GPL inside libfreerdp for instance), then you are welcome to
report it.
I hope I'm sounding too harsh, it's not my intention. I just think it would
be preferable to focus on actual real issues, than have to re-explain
certain things that have already been discussed.
Best regards,
- Marc-André
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Brad Hards <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 05:39:39 pm Jay Sorg wrote:
> > >> Why would you say the whole code base?
> > >
> > > Because the whole code base needs to be legally OK. That is the
> > > acceptable standard, correct?
> >
> > Yes but that is true of all projects. Just because it's GPL does that
> > make it legal?
> I think you're making a logical error here. You want to release your
> (pretty
> damn good) RDP client. You need to find a legal license combination for
> that.
> GPL or MIT isn't the point.
> > I know of things that happened in rdesktop that could invalidate
> > rdesktop license.
> Then perhaps those also need to be dealt with, in so far as the rdesktop
> code
> is still the base for much of the freerdp code.
>
> > Should we pull rdesktop? You take a risk with any software, even MS
> > software.
> "They might have done it wrong, so I can too" isn't a good legal (or
> ethical)
> approach.
>
> > >> Even the newly created files?
> > >
> > > Well, it depends on where the code in those files came from. If the
> whole
> > > file is newly written code, then its all ok. If any of it came from a
> > > GPL source, then that is not ok.
> >
> > No, if the author allows multi licensing, it's OK.
> This is true.
>
> > All the new files
> > I'm talking about are ours though so it's OK.
> I'm not sure which ones you are talking about. However I note this code in
> a
> FreeRDP file (under an Apache license):
> switch (errno)
> {
> case EAGAIN:
> return RD_STATUS_DEVICE_OFF_LINE;
> case ENOSPC:
> return RD_STATUS_DEVICE_PAPER_EMPTY;
> case EIO:
> return RD_STATUS_DEVICE_OFF_LINE;
> default:
> return RD_STATUS_DEVICE_POWERED_OFF;
> }
> and this code in rdesktop code (under GPLv3):
> switch (errno)
> {
> case EAGAIN:
> rc = RD_STATUS_DEVICE_OFF_LINE;
> case ENOSPC:
> rc = RD_STATUS_DEVICE_PAPER_EMPTY;
> case EIO:
> rc = RD_STATUS_DEVICE_OFF_LINE;
> default:
> rc = RD_STATUS_DEVICE_POWERED_OFF;
> }
> I note your changes in r1363, but I won't try to draw conclusions. I simply
> invite you to investigate as you see fit, or ignore me.
>
> > > Here is another example (which I accidently only sent to Marc)
> >
> > Is that file used anymore
> Actually, I thought it was (based on some similar function names), but on
> closer inspection, it looks like you rewrote it (as
> channels/rdpdr/rdpdr_main.c).
>
> OK. Do whatever you think is right. I'm just going to observe from now on.
>
> Good luck with the project.
>
> Brad
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security.
> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery,
> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection.
> Download your free trial now.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1
> _______________________________________________
> Freerdp-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security.
With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery,
you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection.
Download your free trial now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Freerdp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
