[Iup-users] IUP, CD and IM Third Party License Restrictions
Hi All, There has been a lot of discussion about this on the list. IUP, CD and IM have secondary libraries that use third party libraries. The secondary libraries follow their third party libraries license terms as described by the documentation in their respective pages. And this does NOT affect applications that don't use those secondary libraries, because they are in separate libraries, of course. Also applications that use only the IUP main library are NOT dependent on CD nor IM. The fact that we left every party in separate libraries comply with the license restrictions, and allow us to provide solutions for both commercial and free applications. All libraries are packed together to facilitate the distribution. Not considering Lua, IUP for instance has 15 secondary libraries. It is not viable to distribute them in separate packages. So I would like to clarify which third party libraries are not compatible with the MIT license used by IUP, CD and IM. Only the following libraries are not compatible: *iuptuio *+ TUIO (GPL) *cdpdf *+ PDFLib (not free for commercial applications) *im_fftw *+ FFTW (GPL) *im_lzo *+ miniLZO (GPL) Luckily we seem to have less restrictive alternatives for PDFLib and FFTW, probably they will be available in the near future in CD and IM. *iuptuio *and *im_lzo *have low relevance and can be ignored. *cdpdf *can be replaced today by *cdcairo *which has a Cairo PDF driver. No other libraries are affected by these libraries. They are completely independent. The text in: http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/copyright.html Was updated to list only these libraries. Best, Scuri ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
[Iup-users] Source code license comments; IUP/CD/IM notes
G'day all, [Sorry for breaking the thread -- digest strikes again...] Like RMS, I strongly dislike "Open Source" as an umbrella term, and strongly prefer "Free (as in Freedom)" or "Libre" (e.g. LibreOffice): The underlying concepts are massively, massively different. Before I go any further, Lua's use of the MIT license has been a key reason why it has thrived in some key areas, such as game scripting. If it was GPL (probably v2; perhaps, more recently, v3), then some key early-adopter companies would (very likely) not have adopted it. This has been a feedback loop -- Lua has been enriched by its wider audience. The GPL combination of Copyright + License is a brilliant piece of legal engineering, since Copyright as a starting point is so uniform and clear because of the Berne convention. The GPL is all about encouraging, but also being able to force, if necessary, a source-code-sharing culture. With GPL, if you "combine" some GPL code with your code, the entire linked (statically or dynamically) result MUST be licensed with the same GPL license that was in the library. This is non-negotiable. In particular, you MUST grant exactly all the privileges and restrictions of the original GPL component, including explicitly licensing your entire program for all downstream users, as follows: You explicitly grant all the privileges and restrictions of the GPL code that you used, and to all other code linked in the same package, to all clients/users of your code. This license grant is non-revocable, once given. Furthermore, you must apply the same GPL license to all "down-stream" clients of your source code. The "strength" of the linkage between some GPL-controlled source code, and the end-user, can vary widely, and so there is some interpretation that needs to be looked at here. For example. "GNU Grep" is GPLv3 licensed, yet users can run the binary without incurring any license restraints on their work (perhaps Grep being invoked in a Bash script). Any end-user of the GNU Grep utility, however, has the right to receive the source code for that binary utility, under the provisions of the GPL. The Free Software Foundation also recognised that there were cases where the full "Copyleft" demands of the GPL were too onerous, or perhaps there was no benefit since an outside entity (library) already covered nearly all of the territory. Thus, the "LGPL" "Lesser" GPL license was created and is used in some situations, such as the support code for the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) itself. The LGPL demands that modifications made to the LGPLed-library itself must be made available, with the same LGPL license attached to the changes, but does not demand that other parts of the program must adopt the LGPL. If an application (library) calls on libraries with multiple licenses, it is the responsibility for the the application's owner/publisher to ensure that there are no conflicts between any of the components (using a matrix?). -- Okay, enough on general licenses; some brief comments on Tecgraf stuff: CD explicitly "depends on" IM, and IUP explicitly "depends on" CD and IM. Therefore, all worries regarding licenses in CD potentially flow up into IUP. Therefore, I repeat an earlier plea: Please, please separate the top-level projects (e.g. CD), which are currently packaged into a single dynamically-linked library (e.g. .dll or .so, etc) into separate modules, at least initially based on licence considerations (e.g. tuio -- GPL). This separation would mean that there would be much more clarity, than at present, regarding what license conditions an end-user would be exposing themselves to -- they can explicitly avoid GPL libraries by not linking to them, and/or not "require()"ing them in a Lua script. I would also urge that the top-level README at least mention that the product has components with different licensing requirements, and that the top-level LICENCE file enumerate all the licenses in use in the module, along with expressly naming MIT for the code not covered by the enumerated list. For cumulative projects (CD requires IM, and IUP requires CD+IM), the top-level LICENSE file (e.g. for IUP) either explicitly enumerates the requirements inherited from the lower projects, or else very strongly points out the scale and importance of licenses in those other packages. And finally, as before, I would like to see the libraries brought up to be top-level targets in the Makefile, as is mostly true within IUP, but should be applied to IM and CD, so that an "EXCLUDE_TARGETS" or perhaps also an "INCLUDE_TARGETS" macro could be used at the top level of the project Makefile. -- cheers, s-b etc. ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
Tysen, On 2020-06-05 at 9:10 AM, "Moore, Tysen" wrote: >Ranier, >My reasoning for my initial email was not to cause a big fight in this list. Everyone knows you didn't mean for that to happen. The "big fight" you are seeing is just people who like to fight to have a reason to fight. >I was bringing this to the attention of the list in case the maintainers or users were unaware of these issues. For that I thank you because I wasn't aware of those issues either. I wasn't expecting that because ALL the advertisement for IUP only brags about how free and unemcumbered they are in any way, shape, or form, but incorporating functions calls for GPL source code into your --> API <-- and then claiming they are "completely separate from your product" is not an accurate summary of what IUP is actually doing then. IUP is completely free and unemcumbered but you will find certain IUP API functions that are not. Which functions and which sofware that goes with those functions? Go look it up yourself. >I was also looking for some guidance for best practices to resolve these issues. Sometimes these things can only be settled by a disinterested third party with no conflict of interest ... or really, really nice lawyers. >My suggestion was for a benign change to the top level docs to clearly list third party code that one should be aware of. If the maintainers of IUP don't want to do this, that is their decision. Again, my thought was a suggestion for [apparently debatable] improvement. No harm. No HONEST person can fault you for doing the right thing. Like yourself, I too am waiting to see how IUP will respond to your innocent and objective observation(s). So far IUP's first response basically appears to be "Go look it up yourself", which isn't a good thing because that will only lead to websites all around the world having to put warnings in their advertisements about IUP having a few IUP API functions that are not a part of the IUP license but are GPL instead, all you have to do is just search through the source code and documentation for it and avoid it if you don't agree with GPL. At least now I am seeing them beginning to at least question the friendliness of any third party products (FFTW and PdfLib) that are "completely separately" but directly incorporated into the IUP API and zip file, so that is a good sign. So maybe what you did will have a good effect. Regards, Andres PS -- To make this picture complete to anyone on or off the IUP forums who may be monitoring this conversation (FBI? CIA? NSA? Some American-based privacy invading spy organization?), this is an important issue because some people religiously believe that GPL is great because it means software that can be freely accessed, used, changed, and shared, but other people believe that GPL can't be trusted because it was written by lawyers that don't actually work for them, number one, and two, because it appears to be a sneaky way for other people to steal your ideas for free and then make money off of it, and you will never get as much credit for it as they do, because you must release your application as freely accessible, usable, changeable, and sharable for them to peruse. ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
De: Moore, Tysen Enviado: sexta-feira, 5 de junho de 2020 16:10 Para: IUP discussion list. Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions >I'm not sure I entirely agree with your statement: "The point here is that IUP >project have nothing to do with it all. >After all, who is possibly violating >the GPL is the end user of the libraries (CD and IM). The IUP project only >provides, >as a courtesy, the source code of the GPL libraries to anyone who >wants to use it or not, it does not oblige in any >way to use them. And it is >clearly documented, including licenses, in its official documentation, so that >no one is in >doubt." Welcome to the opensource world, with the GPL. >I agree that all users are ultimately responsible for the licenses used within >their projects. However, please take a >step back and look at this as a new >IUP user like myself. I started my project by evaluating a number of >>cross->platform frameworks: wxWidgets, Qt, NCurses, Nuklear, IUP. When >evaluating a number of frameworks I >relied on top level docs, and I even >wrote the same simple app to evaluate high level features needed by my >>application. We decided to use IUP because of its: ease of use, feature set, >licensing, etc. I think it is a little naive to >think a new user evaluating >a framework will know to look for third party licenses in every source >directory when >the top level overview/license sections indicate it's "free >software, can be used for public and commercial >applications". I believe >that you feel things are "clearly documented" but this is from your intimate >knowledge of >the framework. As a new user this is not the case. It is even >more confusing for a new user because the IUP/etc >directories make no clear >distinction between third-party and IUP framework code--at least for a new >user. Unfortunately it is confusing yes. What has to be made clear here, is about the IUP License, is that they are talking about the code itself. It's free-code, without any restrictions. But, as a developer, you and I have to really check if what we are going to use is free or not. That is why I do not use the CD library in my products. See, I already found, for example, projects with all free libraries (not GPL), but the final project is GPL, that is, in this case, you can use the libraries in non-free products, but not the main product code , very confused. >My reasoning for my initial email was not to cause a big fight in this list. >I was bringing this to the attention of the >list in case the maintainers or >users were unaware of these issues. I was also looking for some guidance for >best >practices to resolve these issues. My suggestion was for a benign >change to the top level docs to clearly list third >party code that one should >be aware of. If the maintainers of IUP don't want to do this, that is their >decision. >Again, my thought was a suggestion for [apparently debatable] >improvement. No harm. Certainly, a welcome suggestion, not an imposition. But Tecgraf cannot be held responsible for any deviations that may occur, with or without warnings, by whoever uses the libraries, because in the end, it is not Tecgraf that is violating the GPL, after all the products distributed by it are free-code (GPL accordance). Better yet, walk the path of removing all GPL libraries, step by step, in the end, indirectly protecting all users of those libraries, who may want to create non-free products. regards, Ranier Vilela ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
Ranier, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your statement: "The point here is that IUP project have nothing to do with it all. After all, who is possibly violating the GPL is the end user of the libraries (CD and IM). The IUP project only provides, as a courtesy, the source code of the GPL libraries to anyone who wants to use it or not, it does not oblige in any way to use them. And it is clearly documented, including licenses, in its official documentation, so that no one is in doubt." I agree that all users are ultimately responsible for the licenses used within their projects. However, please take a step back and look at this as a new IUP user like myself. I started my project by evaluating a number of cross-platform frameworks: wxWidgets, Qt, NCurses, Nuklear, IUP. When evaluating a number of frameworks I relied on top level docs, and I even wrote the same simple app to evaluate high level features needed by my application. We decided to use IUP because of its: ease of use, feature set, licensing, etc. I think it is a little naive to think a new user evaluating a framework will know to look for third party licenses in every source directory when the top level overview/license sections indicate it's "free software, can be used for public and commercial applications". I believe that you feel things are "clearly documented" but this is from your intimate knowledge of the framework. As a new user this is not the case. It is even more confusing for a new user because the IUP/etc directories make no clear distinction between third-party and IUP framework code--at least for a new user. My reasoning for my initial email was not to cause a big fight in this list. I was bringing this to the attention of the list in case the maintainers or users were unaware of these issues. I was also looking for some guidance for best practices to resolve these issues. My suggestion was for a benign change to the top level docs to clearly list third party code that one should be aware of. If the maintainers of IUP don't want to do this, that is their decision. Again, my thought was a suggestion for [apparently debatable] improvement. No harm. Tysen From: Ranier Vilela Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 7:37 AM To: r...@gnu.org Cc: iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions De: Richard Stallman Enviado: sexta-feira, 5 de junho de 2020 03:17 Para: Ranier Vilela Cc: arobinso...@cox.net; iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > FFTW is GPL, and not can be use with commercial closed products. >> MiniLZO is GPL and no can be use with commercial closed produtcs. >What you say is right in the basic point, but not stated correctly. >The incorrect aspect is the use of the words "commercial" and >"closed". Yes, it's a little confusing. I understand that there may be a commercial product, with open source. >It is incorrect to use the word "commercial" here. The GPL does not >distinguish between commercial activities and noncommercial acivities, >except in one very obscure case which does not apply here. >it is incorrect to use the word "closed" here. We shun the terms >"open" or "closed" because we do NOT advocate "open source". That >term stands for rejecting our values and principles, so we have never >advocated it and never will. >See https://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html >for more explanation of the difference between free software and open >source. >The right way to state this basic point is that the GPL permits >including the GPL-covered code in a larger combined program >_only provided that_ the larger combined program is, as a whole, >released under the GPL. >In particular, to combine a nonfree program with GPL-covered code >violates the GPL. Yes, I think we all understand that. The point here is that IUP project have nothing to do with it all. After all, who is possibly violating the GPL is the end user of the libraries (CD and IM). The IUP project only provides, as a courtesy, the source code of the GPL libraries to anyone who wants to use it or not, it does not oblige in any way to use them. And it is clearly documented, including licenses, in its official documentation, so that no one is in doubt. >I don't have time to study the details of this case. >I can't keep up with my work now. Anyway, thank you very much for your clarification. regards, Ranier Vilela ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourcef
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > FFTW is GPL, and not can be use with commercial closed products. > MiniLZO is GPL and no can be use with commercial closed produtcs. What you say is right in the basic point, but not stated correctly. The incorrect aspect is the use of the words "commercial" and "closed". It is incorrect to use the word "commercial" here. The GPL does not distinguish between commercial activities and noncommercial acivities, except in one very obscure case which does not apply here. it is incorrect to use the word "closed" here. We shun the terms "open" or "closed" because we do NOT advocate "open source". That term stands for rejecting our values and principles, so we have never advocated it and never will. See https://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html for more explanation of the difference between free software and open source. The right way to state this basic point is that the GPL permits including the GPL-covered code in a larger combined program _only provided that_ the larger combined program is, as a whole, released under the GPL. In particular, to combine a nonfree program with GPL-covered code violates the GPL. I don't have time to study the details of this case. I can't keep up with my work now. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
De: Richard Stallman Enviado: sexta-feira, 5 de junho de 2020 03:17 Para: Ranier Vilela Cc: arobinso...@cox.net; iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > FFTW is GPL, and not can be use with commercial closed products. >> MiniLZO is GPL and no can be use with commercial closed produtcs. >What you say is right in the basic point, but not stated correctly. >The incorrect aspect is the use of the words "commercial" and >"closed". Yes, it's a little confusing. I understand that there may be a commercial product, with open source. >It is incorrect to use the word "commercial" here. The GPL does not >distinguish between commercial activities and noncommercial acivities, >except in one very obscure case which does not apply here. >it is incorrect to use the word "closed" here. We shun the terms >"open" or "closed" because we do NOT advocate "open source". That >term stands for rejecting our values and principles, so we have never >advocated it and never will. >See https://gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html >for more explanation of the difference between free software and open >source. >The right way to state this basic point is that the GPL permits >including the GPL-covered code in a larger combined program >_only provided that_ the larger combined program is, as a whole, >released under the GPL. >In particular, to combine a nonfree program with GPL-covered code >violates the GPL. Yes, I think we all understand that. The point here is that IUP project have nothing to do with it all. After all, who is possibly violating the GPL is the end user of the libraries (CD and IM). The IUP project only provides, as a courtesy, the source code of the GPL libraries to anyone who wants to use it or not, it does not oblige in any way to use them. And it is clearly documented, including licenses, in its official documentation, so that no one is in doubt. >I don't have time to study the details of this case. >I can't keep up with my work now. Anyway, thank you very much for your clarification. regards, Ranier Vilela ___ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
