Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
Dear Colleagues, May I suggest that, at this point, we all need a clarification of the licensing for the libraries in CCP4 (as distinct from the licensing for the programs). The community as a whole would benefit from an unambiguous release of the current libraries (as opposed to the next to current libraries) under the LGPL (as opposed to the GPL or the full-blown CCP4 license). I may be missing something, but I cannot see who would be hurt by such an action. I think we all can see the benefit. Regards, Herbert At 12:04 PM +1000 7/6/07, Tim Grune wrote: To me it seems that clause 2.1.1 of the CCP4 academic license says that one can distribute work derived from or using the CCP4 libraries provided that it complies with clause 2.1.2 The last sentence in clause 2.1.2 says it itself becomes void if the derived work is distributed under the GPL or LGPL. Doesn't that mean that the CCP4 academic license does NOT impose any restrictions at all for work distributed under the LGPL or GPL, because anything that might restrict it is void? Tim On Wednesday 04 July 2007 18:49, Kevin Cowtan wrote: I was speaking imprecisely. I will try again. You cannot create a derived work containing both CCP4 6.* licensed code and GPL'd code, and distribute the resulting program, since the GPL demands that the derived work be distributed without additional restirctions and the CCP4 6.* license imposes additional restrictions on redistribution - in particular (but not limited to) an indemnity clause. Ethan A Merritt wrote: On Tuesday 03 July 2007 06:55, Kevin Cowtan wrote: I'm afraid there is no ambiguity. You can't use the CCP4 version 6.* libraries in GPL software. This sounds strange to me. The question is usually raised in the other direction - whether GPL libraries can be used by a non-GPL program [*]. Here you are saying that a GPL program cannot use non-GPL libraries. I believe this is false. To take an obvious example, consider GPL software running on Windows and calling into the system libraries. Do you think that Cygwin has been in violation of the GPL all these years? Or perhaps I misunderstand. Are you saying that the current CCP4 license does not permit combination with non-CCP4 code? -- Tim Grune Australian Synchrotron 800 Blackburn Road Clayton, VIC 3168 Australia Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Untitled 15 (/) (0016B5AD) -- = Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121 Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 +1-631-244-3035 [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 12:36:29 +0200 George M. Sheldrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SHELX license agreement has had an 'indemnity clause' in it for the last 30 years and no-one has complained about it yet! See: http://shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de/SHELX/applfrm.htm I think the reason most folks have problems with the licensing on the ccp4 *libraries* is that the ccp4 format for maps and reflection files should be an *open* format - the way it stands now, without writing your own library to access ccp4 files (and this is where ambiguity sets in and I find the CCP4-type license completely lacking - can I look at the source code from CCP4 and develop my own library based on what I learn from the code? Does it also matter if I'm a commercial versus academic user?), there is *no way* you can redistribute a program that depends on CCP4 formatted files without simply including said program in the CCP4 distribution. The next best thing is to use the last redistributable verson of the library, which seems to be what the bulk of folks are doing these days. With shelx its a non-issue, since (most) of the files it produces are ascii. The fact that most crystallographic programs use an academics-are-free, commercial-users-pay style for all their licenses with all kinds of additional conditionals (please give us all your personal information and sign here, here and there!) also drives me up a wall, but thats another story. So yes, I strongly disagree with the SHELX license, but since its so frequently done amongst the crystallographic community, I've almost come to expect it. Regards, Tim -- - Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanford University, School of Medicine James H. Clark Center 318 Campus Drive, Room E300 Stanford, CA 94305-5432 Phone: (650) 736-1714 FAX: (650) 736-1961 -
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 23:21:33 -0700 Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the reason most folks have problems with the licensing on the ccp4 *libraries* is that the ccp4 format for maps and reflection files should be an *open* format - the way it stands now, without writing your own library to access ccp4 files (and this is where ambiguity sets in and I find the CCP4-type license completely lacking - can I look at the source code from CCP4 and develop my own library based on what I learn from the code? Does it also matter if I'm a commercial versus academic user?), there is *no way* you can redistribute a program that depends on CCP4 formatted files without simply including said program in the CCP4 distribution. My apologies - this was overzealous and incorrect - although its still rather difficult to get the CCP4 libraries in a distributable form, since the license that covers the libraries aren't OSI/FSF approved. -Tim -- - Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanford University, School of Medicine James H. Clark Center 318 Campus Drive, Room E300 Stanford, CA 94305-5432 Phone: (650) 736-1714 FAX: (650) 736-1961 -
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
To me it seems that clause 2.1.1 of the CCP4 academic license says that one can distribute work derived from or using the CCP4 libraries provided that it complies with clause 2.1.2 The last sentence in clause 2.1.2 says it itself becomes void if the derived work is distributed under the GPL or LGPL. Doesn't that mean that the CCP4 academic license does NOT impose any restrictions at all for work distributed under the LGPL or GPL, because anything that might restrict it is void? Tim On Wednesday 04 July 2007 18:49, Kevin Cowtan wrote: I was speaking imprecisely. I will try again. You cannot create a derived work containing both CCP4 6.* licensed code and GPL'd code, and distribute the resulting program, since the GPL demands that the derived work be distributed without additional restirctions and the CCP4 6.* license imposes additional restrictions on redistribution - in particular (but not limited to) an indemnity clause. Ethan A Merritt wrote: On Tuesday 03 July 2007 06:55, Kevin Cowtan wrote: I'm afraid there is no ambiguity. You can't use the CCP4 version 6.* libraries in GPL software. This sounds strange to me. The question is usually raised in the other direction - whether GPL libraries can be used by a non-GPL program [*]. Here you are saying that a GPL program cannot use non-GPL libraries. I believe this is false. To take an obvious example, consider GPL software running on Windows and calling into the system libraries. Do you think that Cygwin has been in violation of the GPL all these years? Or perhaps I misunderstand. Are you saying that the current CCP4 license does not permit combination with non-CCP4 code? -- Tim Grune Australian Synchrotron 800 Blackburn Road Clayton, VIC 3168 Australia pgpJMJQenaGY9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
Ahh, yes. And this is the result of nearly 3 years of trying to square our desire to release the libraries under as open a license as possible, while the lawyers try and cover the organisation's backside in case someone wants to sue. I believe an attempt was made to ensure that third parties could redistribute the libraries under LGPL, but that founders a bit on the rocks of indemnity. Why was 6.0 not released under LGPL, as 5.0.2 was, well, our lawyers did not fancy trying to defend a damages case under English law when the LGPL was used. So until there is legal precedent STFC lawyers are going to remain wary of the GPL and LGPL. Charles ps- these are my views, not CCP4's or STFC's. On 3 Jul 2007, at 20:25, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote: The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4 5.0.2 libraries, which are LGPL, along with some patches currently maintained by Ralph Grosse-Kunstleve to address the more serious deficiencies of the older libraries. Are the libraries with the patches available publicly? They would have to be - that's the point of the GPL :-) The subset (!) of the CCP4 5.0.2 libraries that we need for the cctbx is included in in the cctbx bundles here: http://cci.lbl.gov/cctbx_build/ A standalone tar file is also available, e.g. a specific version: http://cci.lbl.gov/cctbx_build/results/2007_05_29_2026/ ccp4io_502_cci.tar.gz Or the current version: http://cci.lbl.gov/cctbx_build/results/current/ccp4io_502_cci.tar.gz BTW: We cannot redistribute the CCP4 6 libraries because of an indemnification clause. Being at a government lab, it is virtually impossible to get our lawyers to accept this clause. CCP4 offered a click-through license to pass on the indemnification, but that would have been more work technically than maintaining the older LGPL'ed libraries, and it would make the cctbx a lot less attractive for others, since everybody would have to deal with the indemnification clause when redistributing the cctbx as part of another package. Ralf Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
[ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
Hi The following excerpt from Richard Stallman's talk at the 5th international GPLv3 conference (http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript) indicates that there is a problem with the CCP4 license. It is important to clarify this, and, as RMS says, that if you want to make a more restrictive license, to do this in an unambiguous way. It has major implications for those wanting to distribute their code under the GPL (e.g. clipper, coot), but who also rely on code from the CCP4, typically the library. -- Morten While we were doing this [discussing GPLv3] we decided to try to put an end to a misuse of the GPL. You may occasionally see a program which says This program is released under the GNU GPL but you're not allowed to use it commercially, or some other attempt to add another requirement. That's actually self-contradictory and its meaning is ambiguous, so nobody can be sure what will happen if a judge looks at that. After all, GPL version 2 says you can release a modified version under GPL version 2. So if you take this program with its inconsistent licence and you release a modified version, what licence are you supposed to use? You could argue for two different possibilities. We can't stop people making their software under licences that are more restrictive than the GPL, we can't stop them from releasing non- Free Software, but we can try to prevent them from doing so in a misleading and self-contradictory way, after all, when the program says GPL version 2 but you can't use it commercially, that's not really released under GPL version 2, and it's not Free Software, and if you tried to combine that with code that really is released under GPL version 2, you would be violating GPL2. Because this inconsistent licence starts out by saying GPL version 2, people are very likely to be mislead. They may think it's available under GPL version 2, they may think they're allowed to combine these modules. We want to get rid of this confusing practice. And therefore we've stated that if you see a problem that states GPL version 3 as its licence, but has additional requirements not explicitly permitted in section 7 then you're entitled to remove them. We hope that this will convince the people that want to use more restrictive licences that they should do it in an unambiguous way. That is, they should take the text, edit it, and make their own licence, which might be free or might not, depending on the details, but at least it won't be the GNU GPL, so people won't get confused.
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
I'm afraid there is no ambiguity. You can't use the CCP4 version 6.* libraries in GPL software. The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4 5.0.2 libraries, which are LGPL, along with some patches currently maintained by Ralph Grosse-Kunstleve to address the more serious deficiencies of the older libraries. Clipper comes under two different licences dependent on whether you get it from me or CCP4. Kjeldgaard Morten wrote: Hi The following excerpt from Richard Stallman's talk at the 5th international GPLv3 conference (http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript) indicates that there is a problem with the CCP4 license. It is important to clarify this, and, as RMS says, that if you want to make a more restrictive license, to do this in an unambiguous way. It has major implications for those wanting to distribute their code under the GPL (e.g. clipper, coot), but who also rely on code from the CCP4, typically the library. -- Morten While we were doing this [discussing GPLv3] we decided to try to put an end to a misuse of the GPL. You may occasionally see a program which says This program is released under the GNU GPL but you're not allowed to use it commercially, or some other attempt to add another requirement. That's actually self-contradictory and its meaning is ambiguous, so nobody can be sure what will happen if a judge looks at that. After all, GPL version 2 says you can release a modified version under GPL version 2. So if you take this program with its inconsistent licence and you release a modified version, what licence are you supposed to use? You could argue for two different possibilities. We can't stop people making their software under licences that are more restrictive than the GPL, we can't stop them from releasing non-Free Software, but we can try to prevent them from doing so in a misleading and self-contradictory way, after all, when the program says GPL version 2 but you can't use it commercially, that's not really released under GPL version 2, and it's not Free Software, and if you tried to combine that with code that really is released under GPL version 2, you would be violating GPL2. Because this inconsistent licence starts out by saying GPL version 2, people are very likely to be mislead. They may think it's available under GPL version 2, they may think they're allowed to combine these modules. We want to get rid of this confusing practice. And therefore we've stated that if you see a problem that states GPL version 3 as its licence, but has additional requirements not explicitly permitted in section 7 then you're entitled to remove them. We hope that this will convince the people that want to use more restrictive licences that they should do it in an unambiguous way. That is, they should take the text, edit it, and make their own licence, which might be free or might not, depending on the details, but at least it won't be the GNU GPL, so people won't get confused.
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 06:55, Kevin Cowtan wrote: I'm afraid there is no ambiguity. You can't use the CCP4 version 6.* libraries in GPL software. This sounds strange to me. The question is usually raised in the other direction - whether GPL libraries can be used by a non-GPL program [*]. Here you are saying that a GPL program cannot use non-GPL libraries. I believe this is false. To take an obvious example, consider GPL software running on Windows and calling into the system libraries. Do you think that Cygwin has been in violation of the GPL all these years? Or perhaps I misunderstand. Are you saying that the current CCP4 license does not permit combination with non-CCP4 code? Ethan [*] The FSF says no, and promotes the LGPL as an alternative, but that opinion is not universal. The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4 5.0.2 libraries, which are LGPL, along with some patches currently maintained by Ralph Grosse-Kunstleve to address the more serious deficiencies of the older libraries. Clipper comes under two different licences dependent on whether you get it from me or CCP4. Kjeldgaard Morten wrote: Hi The following excerpt from Richard Stallman's talk at the 5th international GPLv3 conference (http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript) indicates that there is a problem with the CCP4 license. It is important to clarify this, and, as RMS says, that if you want to make a more restrictive license, to do this in an unambiguous way. It has major implications for those wanting to distribute their code under the GPL (e.g. clipper, coot), but who also rely on code from the CCP4, typically the library. -- Morten While we were doing this [discussing GPLv3] we decided to try to put an end to a misuse of the GPL. You may occasionally see a program which says This program is released under the GNU GPL but you're not allowed to use it commercially, or some other attempt to add another requirement. That's actually self-contradictory and its meaning is ambiguous, so nobody can be sure what will happen if a judge looks at that. After all, GPL version 2 says you can release a modified version under GPL version 2. So if you take this program with its inconsistent licence and you release a modified version, what licence are you supposed to use? You could argue for two different possibilities. We can't stop people making their software under licences that are more restrictive than the GPL, we can't stop them from releasing non-Free Software, but we can try to prevent them from doing so in a misleading and self-contradictory way, after all, when the program says GPL version 2 but you can't use it commercially, that's not really released under GPL version 2, and it's not Free Software, and if you tried to combine that with code that really is released under GPL version 2, you would be violating GPL2. Because this inconsistent licence starts out by saying GPL version 2, people are very likely to be mislead. They may think it's available under GPL version 2, they may think they're allowed to combine these modules. We want to get rid of this confusing practice. And therefore we've stated that if you see a problem that states GPL version 3 as its licence, but has additional requirements not explicitly permitted in section 7 then you're entitled to remove them. We hope that this will convince the people that want to use more restrictive licences that they should do it in an unambiguous way. That is, they should take the text, edit it, and make their own licence, which might be free or might not, depending on the details, but at least it won't be the GNU GPL, so people won't get confused. -- Ethan A Merritt Biomolecular Structure Center University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
Ethan Merrit wrote: This sounds strange to me. The question is usually raised in the other direction - whether GPL libraries can be used by a non-GPL program [*]. Here you are saying that a GPL program cannot use non-GPL libraries. I believe this is false. To take an obvious example, consider GPL software running on Windows and calling into the system libraries. Do you think that Cygwin has been in violation of the GPL all these years? Or perhaps I misunderstand. Are you saying that the current CCP4 license does not permit combination with non-CCP4 code? If you have a GPL'd program that relies on another software component with a restricted license, you can distribute the GPL'd program, but not the libraries or other software components it relies on, which means that distribution becomes meaningless. The receiver of your program does not have the same rights to free software that you do. Whether or not that is in fact a _breach_ of the GPL license I am not qualified to say, but I think it is. -- Morten -- Morten Kjeldgaard, Asc. professor, Ph.D. Department of Molecular Biology, Aarhus University Gustav Wieds Vej 10 C, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Lab +45 89425026 * Mobile +45 51860147 * Fax +45 86123178 Home +45 86188180 * http://www.bioxray.dk/~mok
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 09:44, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: Ethan Merrit wrote: This sounds strange to me. The question is usually raised in the other direction - whether GPL libraries can be used by a non-GPL program [*]. Here you are saying that a GPL program cannot use non-GPL libraries. I believe this is false. To take an obvious example, consider GPL software running on Windows and calling into the system libraries. Do you think that Cygwin has been in violation of the GPL all these years? Or perhaps I misunderstand. Are you saying that the current CCP4 license does not permit combination with non-CCP4 code? If you have a GPL'd program that relies on another software component with a restricted license, you can distribute the GPL'd program, but not the libraries or other software components it relies on, I agree. which means that distribution becomes meaningless. Not at all. Consider all those users of GPL programs running on Windows. The developers of cygwin, mplayer, etc have no right to redistribute Windows itself. But they are free to distribute GPL tools that any Windows user can install and run. And a very large number of Windows users do exactly that. The distribution is not meaningless. There is currently a lot of smoke and shouting arising ariound similar issues, but I believe most of it is overly focused on political rather than legal concerns or logic. The GPL cannot require that a program is runnable on every machine in existence. You must logically have compatible hardware, operating system, and yes, support libraries. For example, a GPL license for Coot is not violated just because I cannot run it on my dusty old VAX/VMS workstation. The receiver of your program does not have the same rights to free software that you do. Whether or not that is in fact a _breach_ of the GPL license I am not qualified to say, but I think it is. They do have the same rights. They can use it, modify it, and redistribute it. They may or may not be permitted to distribute 3rd party libraries with it, but that was true of the original distributor also. Well, there is of course one respect in which the rights are different. The original author retains the copyright itself, and consequently the right to issue other non-exclusive licenses. The recipient of GPL code does not obtain a right to re-license. Ethan -- Ethan A Merritt
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:55:22 +0100 Kevin Cowtan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4 5.0.2 libraries, which are LGPL, along with some patches currently maintained by Ralph Grosse-Kunstleve to address the more serious deficiencies of the older libraries. Are the libraries with the patches available publicly? Regards, Tim -- - Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanford University, School of Medicine James H. Clark Center 318 Campus Drive, Room E300 Stanford, CA 94305-5432 Phone: (650) 736-1714 FAX: (650) 736-1961 -
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 11:50, Tim Fenn wrote: On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:55:22 +0100 Kevin Cowtan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The approach adopted by Coot, which is GPL'd, is to use the CCP4 5.0.2 libraries, which are LGPL, along with some patches currently maintained by Ralph Grosse-Kunstleve to address the more serious deficiencies of the older libraries. Are the libraries with the patches available publicly? They would have to be - that's the point of the GPL :-) -- Ethan A MerrittCourier Deliveries: 1959 NE Pacific Dept of Biochemistry Health Sciences Building University of Washington - Seattle WA 98195-7742
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote: Not at all. Consider all those users of GPL programs running on Windows. The developers of cygwin, mplayer, etc have no right to redistribute Windows itself. Programs running under windows are not derivative works of Windows otherwise software developers will require a license from Microsoft to develop windows software. Simply linking to system libraries does not make a program a derivative as far as the GPL is concerned. The only thing the GPL requires is that the users of the software receive the same rights to the software that you received They do have the same rights. They can use it, modify it, and redistribute it. They may or may not be permitted to distribute 3rd party libraries with it, but that was true of the original distributor also. The specific rights that must be transferred with the software are: 1 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0) 2 - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 3 - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). 4 - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. If you distribute software that, in whole or in part does not convey all those freedoms, it is a violation of the GPL if you use GPL code in it. Unless of course you are the original author of all the GPL code, in which case it does not make sense to distribute it under the GPL. Distributing sofware under the GPL license implies that the recipients receive all those rights. Well, there is of course one respect in which the rights are different. The original author retains the copyright itself, and consequently the right to issue other non-exclusive licenses. The recipient of GPL code does not obtain a right to re-license. The GPL (CopyLeft) is only concerned about the 4 freedoms (rights) of users mentioned above. The rights of the author are taken care of by copyright law. /Michel
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 12:09, Michel Fodje wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote: They do have the same rights. They can use it, modify it, and redistribute it. They may or may not be permitted to distribute 3rd party libraries with it, but that was true of the original distributor also. The specific rights that must be transferred with the software are: 1 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0) 2 - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 3 - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). 4 - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Yes. That is a more complete statement of rights under the GPL. Please note, however, that the source code to which you are guaranteed access is the source code to the GPL-ed program itself, not to pieces of the operating environment it runs in. If you distribute software that, in whole or in part does not convey all those freedoms, it is a violation of the GPL if you use GPL code in it. This is an overstatement, or could be mis-read as an overstatement. You can distribute a mixture of GPL and non-GPL code together. Any random linux distribution is an example of this. What you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge. The divergence in opinion is particularly notable with regard to libraries. Ethan [*] Please note that single program is my own imprecise term, not a specific legal wording that is under dispute. -- Ethan A Merritt
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
The CCP4 license does explicitly allow you to redistribute library code Phil That's not the way I read the license. There are two sections of the license that are contradictory, 2.1 and 2.2. Both place restrictions on your use of the software. According to 2.1 you can distribute CCP4 software to third parties, but according to 2.2 you can't. 2.3 limits the license to academic use. None of this is compliant with the GPL, and the inclusion of GPL as appendixes to the CCP4 license is incomprehensible at best, but could be viewed as fraudulent. -- Morten
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
Behalf Of Ethan Merritt What you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge. [*] Ay, there's the rub, which is why I am such a big fan of non-GPL/non-viral open-source licenses, and especially so nowadays given that the lines separating programs, processes, threads, remote-procedure-calls, and even acts of redistribution are disappearing in modern systems (e.g. AJAX/Web2.0). Commercial reliance upon usage and deployment of mixed solutions involving both GPL and non-GPL-compatible code is ill-advised unless you have time and resources to spend on lawyers. Doing so exposes oneself to all sorts of legal ambiguities arising out of diverging opinions and interpretations. I'm not saying it can't be done legally, just that you had better be prepared to defend your actions if you chose to take such risks. Academic efforts are less likely to be sued outright, but, in my view, when sharing both open-source code and actual products, it is best to go either all GPL-like/viral (e.g. GROMACS), all BSD-like/unrestricted (e.g. PyMOL), or all original-code under your own license. DISCLAIMER: these are just my opinions, IANAL. Cheers, Warren -Original Message- From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ethan Merritt Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:47 PM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous On Tuesday 03 July 2007 12:09, Michel Fodje wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote: They do have the same rights. They can use it, modify it, and redistribute it. They may or may not be permitted to distribute 3rd party libraries with it, but that was true of the original distributor also. The specific rights that must be transferred with the software are: 1 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0) 2 - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 3 - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). 4 - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Yes. That is a more complete statement of rights under the GPL. Please note, however, that the source code to which you are guaranteed access is the source code to the GPL-ed program itself, not to pieces of the operating environment it runs in. If you distribute software that, in whole or in part does not convey all those freedoms, it is a violation of the GPL if you use GPL code in it. This is an overstatement, or could be mis-read as an overstatement. You can distribute a mixture of GPL and non-GPL code together. Any random linux distribution is an example of this. What you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge. The divergence in opinion is particularly notable with regard to libraries. Ethan [*] Please note that single program is my own imprecise term, not a specific legal wording that is under dispute. -- Ethan A Merritt
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
Quoting Kjeldgaard Morten [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The CCP4 license does explicitly allow you to redistribute library code Phil That's not the way I read the license. There are two sections of the license that are contradictory, 2.1 and 2.2. Both place restrictions on your use of the software. According to 2.1 you can distribute CCP4 software to third parties, but according to 2.2 you can't. 2.3 limits the license to academic use. None of this is compliant with the GPL, and the inclusion of GPL as appendixes to the CCP4 license is incomprehensible at best, but could be viewed as fraudulent. If you read the licence properly, you will see that section 2.1 covers the libraries, whilst 2.2 covers the applications. It also reads to me, that the only software covered by the LGPL is any which would come under section 2.5 and so is not covered by the CCP4 licence (much as section 2.6 covers third party software included with its own licence, e.g. Astexviewer). I don't have time to examine the licences for each bit of code, but with software from so many sources, I'm sure that some of the code is under the LGPL, and not the CCP4 licence. -- We are the Kitten. Lower your weapons and open your arms. Your refrigerators and sofas will be utilized for our comfort. Your society will be assimilated to nurture and care for our own. Resistance is Furry. +-+ | Andy Purkiss, School of Crystallography, Birkbeck College, London | | E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +-+ This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
While it is correct that one should not try to mix GPL code with commerical code, the use of LGPL APIs to support commercial code (as well as to support open source code under other licenses) is in general viable, and not likely to get you tangled with lawyers. -- Herbert At 1:28 PM -0700 7/3/07, Warren DeLano wrote: Behalf Of Ethan Merritt What you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge. [*] Ay, there's the rub, which is why I am such a big fan of non-GPL/non-viral open-source licenses, and especially so nowadays given that the lines separating programs, processes, threads, remote-procedure-calls, and even acts of redistribution are disappearing in modern systems (e.g. AJAX/Web2.0). Commercial reliance upon usage and deployment of mixed solutions involving both GPL and non-GPL-compatible code is ill-advised unless you have time and resources to spend on lawyers. Doing so exposes oneself to all sorts of legal ambiguities arising out of diverging opinions and interpretations. I'm not saying it can't be done legally, just that you had better be prepared to defend your actions if you chose to take such risks. Academic efforts are less likely to be sued outright, but, in my view, when sharing both open-source code and actual products, it is best to go either all GPL-like/viral (e.g. GROMACS), all BSD-like/unrestricted (e.g. PyMOL), or all original-code under your own license. DISCLAIMER: these are just my opinions, IANAL. Cheers, Warren -Original Message- From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ethan Merritt Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:47 PM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous On Tuesday 03 July 2007 12:09, Michel Fodje wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote: They do have the same rights. They can use it, modify it, and redistribute it. They may or may not be permitted to distribute 3rd party libraries with it, but that was true of the original distributor also. The specific rights that must be transferred with the software are: 1 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0) 2 - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 3 - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). 4 - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Yes. That is a more complete statement of rights under the GPL. Please note, however, that the source code to which you are guaranteed access is the source code to the GPL-ed program itself, not to pieces of the operating environment it runs in. If you distribute software that, in whole or in part does not convey all those freedoms, it is a violation of the GPL if you use GPL code in it. This is an overstatement, or could be mis-read as an overstatement. You can distribute a mixture of GPL and non-GPL code together. Any random linux distribution is an example of this. What you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge. The divergence in opinion is particularly notable with regard to libraries. Ethan [*] Please note that single program is my own imprecise term, not a specific legal wording that is under dispute. -- Ethan A Merritt -- = Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121 Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 +1-631-244-3035 [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 12:34 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote: Yes. That is a more complete statement of rights under the GPL. Please note, however, that the source code to which you are guaranteed access is the source code to the GPL-ed program itself, not to pieces of the operating environment it runs in. And what do you mean by 'operating environment'? In my own understanding, the CCP4 libraries are not an 'operating environment'. Linux/Windows/OSX and compiler run-time libraries are operating environments. If you distribute the program to Linux/Windows users, you don't need to distribute Linux to them for your program to be useful. But if you don't distribute CCP4 libraries with your program, the program is not useful. This is an overstatement, or could be mis-read as an overstatement. You can distribute a mixture of GPL and non-GPL code together. Yes you can distribute GPL programs as part of COLLECTIVE works which also include non-GPL compatible programs. But the terms you apply over the whole of the collective work must be compatible with the GPL. The GPL says the following: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as SEPARATE WORKS. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. Sounds clear to me. /Michel
