Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
De: Richard Stallman Enviado: sábado, 6 de junho de 2020 03:56 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. ]]] >> 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). >I do not know the facts of this, but it sounds like the developers of IUP >are encouraging users to link UUP together with GPL'd libraries. >That may be infringement. I cannot agree with that statement. What if I, as a developer, want to create free code, based on the work distributed by the IUP project? Wouldn't I be benefiting, from all the work already done, wouldn't I be complaining, or criticizing, or saying that this is a shame? But if, on the contrary, as a developer, I want to create non-free code, based on someone's work, whoever it is, it is necessary, very careful and a lot of careful research, so as not to violate the GPL. >Does IUP tell users that they can't link IUP and those GPL'd libraries >into one combined program? Are we talking about children? A project, is it necessary to take hands and cross the street? For more than 20 years, I know that I cannot combine GPL to create non-free code, even though I call it a commercial product (wrongly). It is not in the assignments of any projects, to say what users can and cannot do, with respect to GPL. The project itself does not violate the GPL in any way. 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
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
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
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
That's very interesting! Fftw is too restrictive. Thanks, Scuri Em qui, 4 de jun de 2020 19:20, Ranier Vilela escreveu: > De: Antonio Scuri > Enviado: quinta-feira, 4 de junho de 2020 21:42 > Para: IUP discussion list. > Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions > > > Actually we can implement a CD_HARU_PDF driver. That will be a nice > alternative for PDFLib. > Taking the opportunity, I could not help suggesting, for the future of > course, one more step. > > Replace FFTW by FFTSS (https://www.ssisc.org/fftss/index.html.en) > > Excerpt taken: > "Key Features > Compatibility with FFTW3. Replace the header file name "fftw3.h" with > "fftw3compat.h". " > > 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.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
De: Antonio Scuri Enviado: quinta-feira, 4 de junho de 2020 21:42 Para: IUP discussion list. Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions > Actually we can implement a CD_HARU_PDF driver. That will be a nice > alternative for PDFLib. Taking the opportunity, I could not help suggesting, for the future of course, one more step. Replace FFTW by FFTSS (https://www.ssisc.org/fftss/index.html.en) Excerpt taken: "Key Features Compatibility with FFTW3. Replace the header file name "fftw3.h" with "fftw3compat.h". " 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
De: Antonio Scuri Enviado: quinta-feira, 4 de junho de 2020 21:42 Para: IUP discussion list. Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions > Actually we can implement a CD_HARU_PDF driver. That will be a nice > alternative for PDFLib. Would be excellent. Thanks. > BTW we already have a CD_CAIRO_PDF driver implemented. But it depends on > Cairo. Cairo is LGPL and can be used with commercial products (non-free-code). https://www.cairographics.org/ 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
Actually we can implement a CD_HARU_PDF driver. That will be a nice alternative for PDFLib. BTW we already have a CD_CAIRO_PDF driver implemented. But it depends on Cairo. Best, Scuri Em qui., 4 de jun. de 2020 às 18:20, Ranier Vilela escreveu: > De: Hernan Cano > Enviado: quinta-feira, 4 de junho de 2020 19:32 > Para: IUP discussion list. > Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions > > >>> IUP library does not use PDFLite. > >>> CD library uses PDFLite. > > >Thanks for clarification. As my interest is "using Lua language with IUP > grafical interface --and CD and IM attached >to IUP--", I wrote about IUP > as the "main" of the package. But... yes... thanks. > You are welcome. > > >And yes, I have seen the PDFLite license, and I agree. > > >And since the point of view of mine, I cannot use LibHaru,because I > understand you that this proposal of you >involves "put my fingers in IUP > core and/or CD core and/or IM core" and this is something not relsated with > me, >just using Lua+IUP+CD+IM, not to program its core. > Of course, no problem. > But libharu is a viable alternative to the CD library, it is free and in > my opinion better than PDFLite. > > >But I'll take a look on LibHaru. > Maybe, has lua package... > > 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.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
De: Hernan Cano Enviado: quinta-feira, 4 de junho de 2020 19:32 Para: IUP discussion list. Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions >>> IUP library does not use PDFLite. >>> CD library uses PDFLite. >Thanks for clarification. As my interest is "using Lua language with IUP >grafical interface --and CD and IM attached >to IUP--", I wrote about IUP as >the "main" of the package. But... yes... thanks. You are welcome. >And yes, I have seen the PDFLite license, and I agree. >And since the point of view of mine, I cannot use LibHaru,because I understand >you that this proposal of you >involves "put my fingers in IUP core and/or CD >core and/or IM core" and this is something not relsated with me, >just using >Lua+IUP+CD+IM, not to program its core. Of course, no problem. But libharu is a viable alternative to the CD library, it is free and in my opinion better than PDFLite. >But I'll take a look on LibHaru. Maybe, has lua package... 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
De: Hernan Cano Enviado: quinta-feira, 4 de junho de 2020 03:23 Para: IUP discussion list. Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions >I am very interested in using Lua and IUP and addings, not just for learning >(that I am doing for these days), but for >commercial products (I wait very >soon). >But it is clear that one must no use illegally any one of the referred >libraries. >I thank you that you share the things you have found. >Can you share me where can I find info about PDFLite license (since IUP point >of view and since PDFLib point of >view) for me to deep into it? https://www.pdflib.com/licensing-support/ IUP library does not use PDFLite. CD library uses PDFLite. Unfortunately, if you choose to use IUP with CD, to have access to PDFLite, you will have to purchase the license to use PDFLite in order to use it with a commercial product (non-free code). Alternatively, it could help to develop a version for use with libharu whose license is BSD. https://github.com/libharu/libharu/wiki/FAQ 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
Hi, Ranier. I am very interested in using Lua and IUP and addings, not just for learning (that I am doing for these days), but for commercial products (I wait very soon). But it is clear that one must no use illegally any one of the referred libraries. I thank you that you share the things you have found. Can you share me where can I find info about PDFLite license (since IUP point of view and since PDFLib point of view) for me to deep into it? Thanks, friend. *HERNAN CANO MARTINEZ* Systems Analyst El mié., 3 de jun. de 2020 a la(s) 12:49, Ranier Vilela escribió: > FFTW is GPL, and not can be use with commercial closed products. > MiniLZO is GPL and no can be use with commercial closed produtcs. > PDFlite (PDFLib) is GPL and no can use with commercial closed produtcs. > Tuio is LGPL and can be use with commercial closed products. > http://reactivision.sourceforge.net/ > "The related TUIO reference implemenations and clients are available under > the LGPL, license which both allows its inclusion in open and closed source > projects, while only the changes to the actual libraries need to be > published under the same LGPL license." > > FFTW, MiniLZO and PDFlite, is not used in IUP framework. > So IUP users can use with commercial products legal rightfully. > > CD framework and IM framework is another history and must be evaluated by > whoever will use it, excluding GPL libraries that cannot be used in > commercial products, without the purchase of the proper license. > 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
Stop publicly harassing me, Ranier. This is your final warning. On 2020-06-03 at 12:55 PM, Ranier Vilela wrote: >De: Andrew Robinson >Enviado: quarta-feira, 3 de junho de 2020 19:36 >Para: Antonio Scuri >Cc: IUP discussion list.; Richard Stallman >Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions > >Hello Antonio, > >On 2020-06-03 at 10:45 AM, Antonio Scuri mailto:antonio.sc...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> I agree with mr Stallman, but I totally disagree with you when you say: >>And I agree with Tysen Moore and his lawyers. > >>"That got my attention because I don't like surprises, so then >>Tysen and I both asked Mr Scuri why no mention of this was made in either the >>licensing section or in the credit section, he basically said you had to go >>find it yourself somewhere within the source code." > > >I clearly said I clearly said that our secondary libraries are documented in each respective page that states they are >NOT part of our main library. Their licenses are described there. If our secondary library uses a third party library that >is GPL code then this secondary library is also GPL. That's exactly why we left it in a secondary library and NOT in the >main library. Even though all our code is open source and available to everyone use and modify. > >>"I clearly said...". > >>We asked for links and you clearly gave none. We asked for examples and you clearly gave none. That's not being >"clear", that is being evasive. All I'm asking for (and all I can see that Tysen Moore is asking for), is to pretty please >include ALL the licenses that the IUP project bundles with IUP, and put them in one easy-to-find place like the >copyright or credits section of the IUP WebBook. I don't want to see any more emails about lawyers having an excuse >to find questionable things in IUP anymore -- agreed? > >>FYI, I looked at IupTuioClient() and there is no mention of any 3rd party license. Is that because there is none? Or >maybe the license is buried somewhere in the source code (something that I am not directed or required to read or >download in the IUP documentation/WebBook)? Linking to the license on the Internet in an email or saying the >license is somewhere in the source code, is not including the license in the documentation as the licenses appear to >say they must do. The WebBook is required documentation therefore that is where ALL the licenses by default should >be mentioned, as other companies do. > >> The secondary libraries are OPTIONAL. If you don't understand that, please don't use it at all. >>Where in the IUP WebBook are any libraries/functions literally documented as being "OPTIONAL" to IUP? This is all >brand new to me. > >>"In other words, the WHOLE TRUTH is, only a part of the IUP bundled-framework can be used for public >>commercial applications, unless you want to open source your application, but >>they fail to tell you which parts are "completely free" and which are not." > > > You are not obligated to use all libraries available in IUP. If you use, the least you can do is to read the >documentation of the library. > >>Then give a direct link to where IupTuioClient() in the IUP WebBook where it clearly says it isn't a part of the IUP >licensing. I mean just as one example of "the right thing to do". > >> This is your misunderstanding. IUP exists for more than 20 years. >>One mistake in 20 years isn't something to be ashamed of, is it? >>Several times it has been analyzed for use in commercial applications that are not free. Our documentation is actually >one thing that I'm proud of, making clear and being updated in detail for everyone. > > > Again if you do think this way, please simply don't use it. >>I have a better idea: be more transparent about all the licensing requirements of anything that is not actually a part >of the IUP licensing, as every other company does. Don't make this more difficult than it has to be. > >I not agreed. >First, No one is forced to do or fail to do something for you, is that CLEAR for you! >Second, Everything that the IUP team does for users is nothing more than kindness. >Third, if you don't agree with that, you're living in the world of the moon, it's simple, stop using. > >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
Antonio said: >>> You are not obligated to use all libraries available in IUP. If you use, the least you can do is to read the documentation of the library. When I (or any) need to use a lib, I (and any) read the doc. Then I (and/or any) discover something that has to be analyzed. Ranier said: >>> Third, if you don't agree with that, ..., it's simple, stop using. If my mind get in trouble, my probably first decision (or of any) could be stop abd discard it... But we are in a collaborative group and some more analisis could lead to the following. Ranier has found that: >>> FFTW is GPL, and not can be use with commercial closed products. MiniLZO is GPL and no can be use with commercial closed produtcs. PDFlite (PDFLib) is GPL and no can use with commercial closed produtcs. Tuio is LGPL and can be use with commercial closed products. I conclude that --in this four phrases-- there is no confusion: they are accurate, certain, not doubtly. This way I can take a better decision. Sincerly I need to go deeper in this four libs But I give thanks to Ranier for this conclusion, and Antonio for the IUP great job. --- In short phrases: 1. If you find somethiong strange and can not go deeper, stop. 2. If you can go deeper and understanding --alone or with collaborative helping--, you can get better conclusion; for ex: *MiniLZO is GPL and no can be use with commercial closed produtcs*. 3. But if you again find something strange, repeat these step; for ex: *PDFlite (PDFLib) is GPL and no can use with commercial closed produtcs*. We can keep on contact. *HERNAN CANO MARTINEZ* Analista de Sistemas Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia ___ 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: Andrew Robinson Enviado: quarta-feira, 3 de junho de 2020 19:36 Para: Antonio Scuri Cc: IUP discussion list.; Richard Stallman Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions Hello Antonio, On 2020-06-03 at 10:45 AM, Antonio Scuri mailto:antonio.sc...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I agree with mr Stallman, but I totally disagree with you when you say: >And I agree with Tysen Moore and his lawyers. >"That got my attention because I don't like surprises, so then >Tysen and I both asked Mr Scuri why no mention of this was made in either the >licensing section or in the credit section, he basically said you had to go >find it yourself somewhere within the source code." >I clearly said I clearly said that our secondary libraries are documented in each respective page that states they are >NOT part of our main library. Their licenses are described there. If our secondary library uses a third party library that >is GPL code then this secondary library is also GPL. That's exactly why we left it in a secondary library and NOT in the >main library. Even though all our code is open source and available to everyone use and modify. >"I clearly said...". >We asked for links and you clearly gave none. We asked for examples and you >clearly gave none. That's not being >"clear", that is being evasive. All I'm >asking for (and all I can see that Tysen Moore is asking for), is to pretty >please >include ALL the licenses that the IUP project bundles with IUP, and >put them in one easy-to-find place like the >copyright or credits section of >the IUP WebBook. I don't want to see any more emails about lawyers having an >excuse >to find questionable things in IUP anymore -- agreed? >FYI, I looked at IupTuioClient() and there is no mention of any 3rd party >license. Is that because there is none? Or >maybe the license is buried >somewhere in the source code (something that I am not directed or required to >read or >download in the IUP documentation/WebBook)? Linking to the license on >the Internet in an email or saying the >license is somewhere in the source >code, is not including the license in the documentation as the licenses appear >to >say they must do. The WebBook is required documentation therefore that is >where ALL the licenses by default should >be mentioned, as other companies do. > The secondary libraries are OPTIONAL. If you don't understand that, please > don't use it at all. >Where in the IUP WebBook are any libraries/functions literally documented as >being "OPTIONAL" to IUP? This is all >brand new to me. >"In other words, the WHOLE TRUTH is, only a part of the IUP bundled-framework >can be used for public >commercial applications, unless you want to open source your application, but >they fail to tell you which parts are "completely free" and which are not." > You are not obligated to use all libraries available in IUP. If you use, > the least you can do is to read the >documentation of the library. >Then give a direct link to where IupTuioClient() in the IUP WebBook where it >clearly says it isn't a part of the IUP >licensing. I mean just as one example >of "the right thing to do". > This is your misunderstanding. IUP exists for more than 20 years. >One mistake in 20 years isn't something to be ashamed of, is it? >Several times it has been analyzed for use in commercial applications that are >not free. Our documentation is actually >one thing that I'm proud of, making >clear and being updated in detail for everyone. > Again if you do think this way, please simply don't use it. >I have a better idea: be more transparent about all the licensing requirements >of anything that is not actually a part >of the IUP licensing, as every other >company does. Don't make this more difficult than it has to be. I not agreed. First, No one is forced to do or fail to do something for you, is that CLEAR for you! Second, Everything that the IUP team does for users is nothing more than kindness. Third, if you don't agree with that, you're living in the world of the moon, it's simple, stop using. 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
Hello Antonio, On 2020-06-03 at 10:45 AM, Antonio Scuri wrote: I agree with mr Stallman, but I totally disagree with you when you say: And I agree with Tysen Moore and his lawyers. "That got my attention because I don't like surprises, so then Tysen and I both asked Mr Scuri why no mention of this was made in either the licensing section or in the credit section, he basically said you had to go find it yourself somewhere within the source code." I clearly said I clearly said that our secondary libraries are documented in each respective page that states they are NOT part of our main library. Their licenses are described there. If our secondary library uses a third party library that is GPL code then this secondary library is also GPL. That's exactly why we left it in a secondary library and NOT in the main library. Even though all our code is open source and available to everyone use and modify. "I clearly said...". We asked for links and you clearly gave none. We asked for examples and you clearly gave none. That's not being "clear", that is being evasive. All I'm asking for (and all I can see that Tysen Moore is asking for), is to pretty please include ALL the licenses that the IUP project bundles with IUP, and put them in one easy-to-find place like the copyright or credits section of the IUP WebBook. I don't want to see any more emails about lawyers having an excuse to find questionable things in IUP anymore -- agreed? FYI, I looked at IupTuioClient() and there is no mention of any 3rd party license. Is that because there is none? Or maybe the license is buried somewhere in the source code (something that I am not directed or required to read or download in the IUP documentation/WebBook)? Linking to the license on the Internet in an email or saying the license is somewhere in the source code, is not including the license in the documentation as the licenses appear to say they must do. The WebBook is required documentation therefore that is where ALL the licenses by default should be mentioned, as other companies do. The secondary libraries are OPTIONAL. If you don't understand that, please don't use it at all. Where in the IUP WebBook are any libraries/functions literally documented as being "OPTIONAL" to IUP? This is all brand new to me. "In other words, the WHOLE TRUTH is, only a part of the IUP bundled-framework can be used for public commercial applications, unless you want to open source your application, but they fail to tell you which parts are "completely free" and which are not." You are not obligated to use all libraries available in IUP. If you use, the least you can do is to read the documentation of the library. Then give a direct link to where IupTuioClient() in the IUP WebBook where it clearly says it isn't a part of the IUP licensing. I mean just as one example of "the right thing to do". This is your misunderstanding. IUP exists for more than 20 years. One mistake in 20 years isn't something to be ashamed of, is it? Several times it has been analyzed for use in commercial applications that are not free. Our documentation is actually one thing that I'm proud of, making clear and being updated in detail for everyone. Again if you do think this way, please simply don't use it. I have a better idea: be more transparent about all the licensing requirements of anything that is not actually a part of the IUP licensing, as every other company does. Don't make this more difficult than it has to be. Regards, Andres ___ 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: Andrew Robinson Enviado: quarta-feira, 3 de junho de 2020 17:11 Para: Richard Stallman Cc: IUP discussion list. Assunto: Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions >So far, this is how many products I had no idea from the IUP documentation >cannot be used for public or commercial applications (unless you open source >your public or commercial application): > FFTW > MiniLZO > Tuio >PdfLib >FGTL >Freetype > Zlib > Scintilla > WinDrawLib Once you don't know it, I'll read it to you. FFTW is GPL, and not can be use with commercial closed products. MiniLZO is GPL and no can be use with commercial closed produtcs. PDFlite (PDFLib) is GPL and no can use with commercial closed produtcs. Tuio is LGPL and can be use with commercial closed products. http://reactivision.sourceforge.net/ "The related TUIO reference implemenations and clients are available under the LGPL, license which both allows its inclusion in open and closed source projects, while only the changes to the actual libraries need to be published under the same LGPL license." FFTW, MiniLZO and PDFlite, is not used in IUP framework. So IUP users can use with commercial products legal rightfully. CD framework and IM framework is another history and must be evaluated by whoever will use it, excluding GPL libraries that cannot be used in commercial products, without the purchase of the proper license. >Let me know if I should escalate this issue to someone else if this is not >something you want to deal with because I don't want to waste your time or >mine. Do the list a favor, stop wasting our time and get out of it. +1 for remove from the list. 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
I agree with mr Stallman, but I totally disagree with you when you say: *"That got my attention because I don't like surprises, so then* *Tysen and I both asked Mr Scuri why no mention of this was made in either thelicensing section or in the credit section, he basically said you had to gofind it yourself somewhere within the source code."* I clearly said that our secondary libraries are documented in each respective page that states they are NOT part of our main library. Their licenses are described there. If our secondary library uses a third party library that is GPL code then this secondary library is also GPL. That's exactly why we left it in a secondary library and NOT in the main library. Even though all our code is open source and available to everyone use and modify. The secondary libraries are OPTIONAL. If you don't understand that, please don't use it at all. *"In other words, the WHOLE TRUTH is, only a part of the IUP bundled-framework can be used for publiccommercial applications, unless you want to open source your application, butthey fail to tell you which parts are "completely free" and which are not."* You are not obligated to use all libraries available in IUP. If you use, the least you can do is to read the documentation of the library. This is your misunderstanding. IUP exists for more than 20 years. Several times it has been analyzed for use in commercial applications that are not free. Our documentation is actually one thing that I'm proud of, making clear and being updated in detail for everyone. Again if you do think this way, please simply don't use it. Best Regards, Antonio Scuri Em qua., 3 de jun. de 2020 às 14:11, Andrew Robinson escreveu: > Hi RMS, > > I wasn't a part of the conversation you are quoting here, but I will > bite... > > Under the heading "Product" from the IUP online documentation at > https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/prod.html, it says "IUP is free > software, [it] can be used for public and commercial applications". > > Under the heading "Tecgraf Library License" from the IUP online > documentation > at https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/copyright.html, it says "The > Tecgraf > products under this license are: IUP, CD and IM. All the products under > this > license are free software: they can be used for both academic and > commercial > purposes at absolutely no cost. There are no paperwork, no royalties, no > GNU-like "copyleft" restrictions, either. Just download and use it. They > are > licensed under the terms of the MIT license reproduced below, and so are > compatible with GPL and also qualifies as Open Source software. They are > not > in the public domain, PUC-Rio keeps their copyright." > > Under the heading or "Credits" from the IUP online documentation at > https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/prod.html#creditos, it makes no > mention > of the great many GNU licensed products BUNDLED with the IUP product. > > Then Tysen Moore at sent out an email at > https://sourceforge.net/p/iup/mailman/message/37024247/, that said his > company's lawyers found one PdfLib license and quite a few GPL-licensed > products bundled within the IUP product that could make his product > incompatible with his apparently commercial product that isn't going to be > opened source. That got my attention because I don't like surprises, so > then > Tysen and I both asked Mr Scuri why no mention of this was made in either > the > licensing section or in the credit section, he basically said you had to go > find it yourself somewhere within the source code. Somewhere. Trust me. > > These GPL and PdfLib products are not separate products from IUP, they are > documented as being a part of the IUP framework. In other words, the WHOLE > TRUTH is, only a part of the IUP bundled-framework can be used for public > commercial applications, unless you want to open source your application, > but > they fail to tell you which parts are "completely free" and which are not. > You > are just supposed to figure that out on your own. That doesn't sound > suspicious at all, does it? > > So the question (maybe) really is, shouldn't the copyright for all products > you bundle with your developer's application be mentioned in your > copyright or > credit section of your public documentation? When a license says "you must > include the original copyright and license", where should that copyright be > prominently displayed? Every company I know of puts ALL the copyrights in > one > place, not scattered throughout something you may or may not read, like > source > code that isn't required reading or an obvious place to document your > (many) > copyrights. > > So far, this is how many products I had no idea from the IUP documentation > cannot be used for public or commercial applications (unless you open > source > your public or commercial application): > FFTW > MiniLZO > Tuio > PdfLib > FGTL > Freetype >
Re: [Iup-users] Fw: IUP License Questions
Hi RMS, I wasn't a part of the conversation you are quoting here, but I will bite... Under the heading "Product" from the IUP online documentation at https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/prod.html, it says "IUP is free software, [it] can be used for public and commercial applications". Under the heading "Tecgraf Library License" from the IUP online documentation at https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/copyright.html, it says "The Tecgraf products under this license are: IUP, CD and IM. All the products under this license are free software: they can be used for both academic and commercial purposes at absolutely no cost. There are no paperwork, no royalties, no GNU-like "copyleft" restrictions, either. Just download and use it. They are licensed under the terms of the MIT license reproduced below, and so are compatible with GPL and also qualifies as Open Source software. They are not in the public domain, PUC-Rio keeps their copyright." Under the heading or "Credits" from the IUP online documentation at https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/prod.html#creditos, it makes no mention of the great many GNU licensed products BUNDLED with the IUP product. Then Tysen Moore at sent out an email at https://sourceforge.net/p/iup/mailman/message/37024247/, that said his company's lawyers found one PdfLib license and quite a few GPL-licensed products bundled within the IUP product that could make his product incompatible with his apparently commercial product that isn't going to be opened source. That got my attention because I don't like surprises, so then Tysen and I both asked Mr Scuri why no mention of this was made in either the licensing section or in the credit section, he basically said you had to go find it yourself somewhere within the source code. Somewhere. Trust me. These GPL and PdfLib products are not separate products from IUP, they are documented as being a part of the IUP framework. In other words, the WHOLE TRUTH is, only a part of the IUP bundled-framework can be used for public commercial applications, unless you want to open source your application, but they fail to tell you which parts are "completely free" and which are not. You are just supposed to figure that out on your own. That doesn't sound suspicious at all, does it? So the question (maybe) really is, shouldn't the copyright for all products you bundle with your developer's application be mentioned in your copyright or credit section of your public documentation? When a license says "you must include the original copyright and license", where should that copyright be prominently displayed? Every company I know of puts ALL the copyrights in one place, not scattered throughout something you may or may not read, like source code that isn't required reading or an obvious place to document your (many) copyrights. So far, this is how many products I had no idea from the IUP documentation cannot be used for public or commercial applications (unless you open source your public or commercial application): FFTW MiniLZO Tuio PdfLib FGTL Freetype Zlib Scintilla WinDrawLib Let me know if I should escalate this issue to someone else if this is not something you want to deal with because I don't want to waste your time or mine. Thank you in advance, Andres On 2020-06-02 at 9:32 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >[[[ 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. ]]] > > > We are using the IUP framework to create a commercial application. > >I don't know anything about IUP except what you've told me. IUP is >not the name of any GNU package; it must have been developed by >others, not us. > > > We are using the IUP framework to create a commercial application. The > > decision to use this framework rested upon the statement; "IUP is free > > software, can be used for public and commercial applications". Unfortunately, > > our license compliance team has flagged some issues within IUP. It would > > appear that the claim "free" for "commercial applications" may not be entirely > > accurate. > >I suspect a misunderstanding here. "Commercial" is not the same as "nonfree". >See https://gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html. > >Perhaps they should clarify their statement about the matter. They >should say "can be used for noncommercian or commercial applications >provided their licenses are compatible with the licenses of the >libraries used." > > >You seem to understand the requirements of the two licenses you mentioned. > > > The licenses that are incompatible with out application include: > > - GPLv2 code which should not be linked with proprietary code > >Correct. However, it can be used in commercial programs >provided those programs are free/libre. > >Apparently your program is not free/libre. That is a
