Re: Mac Developers
On Monday 26 August 2002 05:55 pm, Steve Mallett wrote: > Sure, this is a bit off-topic.. > > With all the hub-bub surrounding OS X these days I note and ask: > > There are largely few open source mac apps. > > What has or hasn't happened here? Every platform has its own custom with regards to writing and distributing software. I believe that these differences are largely due to the compiler. First, since day one virtually every UNIX and unix-like system installed a compiler by default. Windows and Mac never did this. Thus, source code was ubiquitous on UNIX, but an arcane mystery to Windows and Mac users. UNIX users were distributing software in a quasi open source way long before RMS nailed his manifesto to the cathedral door. To a Windows or pre-OSX Mac user, this was unheard of. All my Windows friends today that think I'm stupid for not distributing my stuff as shareware. All my UNIX friends never give it a second thought. The exception that proves the rule: DOS. DOS was traditionally installed with a BASIC interpreter. Back in the eighties, it was common to see BASIC programs distributed in a quasi open source way. In fact, the first time I ever saw the GPL license was attached to a game written in BASIC. Under Windows you have to pay to get a compiler. Until recently, the same thing applied for Macintosh. So you either used shareware to try and recoup the cost, or your realized that 99.99% of your users didn't have compilers, and never bothered distributing it with your freeware binary anyway. This might change under OSX, since it now has gcc as its standard compiler. But two things still stand in the way. First, the culture has already been established, and cultures are hard to change. Second, the compiler still isn't installed by default, and it isn't even (IIRC) on the install CD. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Can you under the GPL distribute executables without full sources?
On Thursday 22 August 2002 07:32 am, James Michael DuPont wrote: > Can a person distribute just a DLL or lib without the source code being > able to compile directly? > > Or Even worse : > if other people base thier DLLS just on the DLLS provided, but no-one > is able to recompile the entire thing from scratch, is that legal? >From my understanding of the (L)GPL, the answer is yes. As common courtesy, I would also make it very evident to all comers that the source code is broken. > As far as I can tell from the GPL, all sources that do not belong > to the standard system install have to be provided, not just the name > of the lib used. It depends a little bit on what you are distributing. If you are distributing "some GNOME libs I'm trying to port to Windows, but are currently broken", then you have a lot of leeway. It's broken, so they can't build it anyway. But if it wasn't broken (or at least not intended to be broken), then everything in the software chain down to the OS must be GPL compatible. What exactly this "systems software" clause covers is a topic of minor debate. The FSF argued in the past that the Qt library did not count, even for systems where it was installed by default. On the other hand, the MFC libraries do count, even though they do not ship with the OS. In my opinion, as long as this software is broken, you don't have to distribute anything it depends on, since it can't, by definition, depend on anything. Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Even if no one is paying you to do this coding, you should still hire an expensive attorney to review the GPL and advise you in all legal matters pertaining to your porting activities. At least that's what my attorney told me. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Mac Developers
Sure, this is a bit off-topic.. With all the hub-bub surrounding OS X these days I note and ask: There are largely few open source mac apps. Have mac developers: 1) Been ignored in talking about opensource, 2) been conscientious objecters, 3) not given a crap, 4) All of the above? The apps I've been looking at seem to fall equally into shareware (pay me later) or freeware with restrictive redistribution terms (don't embarrass me by associating your crappy mod with myself or my work without my permission) What has or hasn't happened here? -- Steve Mallett | http://OSDir.com | Stable, Open Source Apps. Now O'Reilly-ized! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://open5ource.net "The more I contemplate death and my mortality, the more it inspires me to live my life like a work of art." -Brian Clifton -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Bounty Castle license and GNU GPL compatibility ?
Alexandre, The license used by Bounty Castle is the MIT license, which is already known to be GPL compatible. Having said that, the appropriate organization to ask about GPL compatibility is Free Software Foundation, so you may want to verify with them. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php PS: This is not legal advice. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Bounty Castle license and GNU GPL compatibility ?
Ok (I respond myself ;-). If I'm correctly understand, the free-of-charge is only for the initial distribution but after you are free to add cost of handling. So this seems compatible with the GNU General Public License. Thanks. On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > Dear All, > > I'm checking if the Bounty Castle license > (http://www.bouncycastle.org/license.html) is compatible with the GNU > General Public License : > > Copyright (c) 2000 The Legion Of The Bouncy Castle > (http://www.bouncycastle.org) > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a > copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), > to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation > the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, > and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the > Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in > all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR > IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL > THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER > LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING > FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER > DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > > > This seems compatible except maybe the free of charge as the GNU General > Public Licenses can require a fee for the cost of the handling. > > What is your opinion about that ? > > Thanks. > > adulau > > > > -- Alexandre Dulaunoy -- http://www.foo.be/ 3B12 DCC2 82FA 2931 2F5B 709A 09E2 CD49 44E6 CBCD --- AD993-6BONE "People who fight may lose. People who not fight have already lost." Bertolt Brecht -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Bounty Castle license and GNU GPL compatibility ?
Dear All, I'm checking if the Bounty Castle license (http://www.bouncycastle.org/license.html) is compatible with the GNU General Public License : Copyright (c) 2000 The Legion Of The Bouncy Castle (http://www.bouncycastle.org) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. This seems compatible except maybe the free of charge as the GNU General Public Licenses can require a fee for the cost of the handling. What is your opinion about that ? Thanks. adulau -- Alexandre Dulaunoy -- http://www.foo.be/ 3B12 DCC2 82FA 2931 2F5B 709A 09E2 CD49 44E6 CBCD --- AD993-6BONE "People who fight may lose. People who not fight have already lost." Bertolt Brecht -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Differences between LGPL and SISSL ?
Hi, Sun wrote the SISSL, and uses LGPL as well (in a dual-license configuration) for OpenOffice.org, so I thought I should take a stab at explaining the differences. BTW, IANAL. SISSL and LGPL are both Free and Open Source licenses, meaning that they satisfy the requirements of both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative. The LGPL is essentially identical to the GPL, except that it allows an exception to the inheritance characteristic of the GPL when derivative works are created through "dynamic" linking. In other words, non-GPL code can be used together with LGPL code as long as it is combined in a way that leaves the LGPL software independent and functioning with or without the non-GPL code (for example, run-time linking of a driver or library through an API abstraction layer). The SISSL acts essentially like a BSD license, allowing code reuse as long as that reuse does not deviate from the referenced standard(s) (in the case of OpenOffice.org, the standards referenced are the OpenOffice.org APIs and the OpenOffice.org file formats). If code reuse deviates from the standards, then the license begins to act more like the GPL, requiring the author of the derivative work to reveal the changes to the standards either by revealing code as implemented or by revealing a specification and generic reference implementation. The reason for the "either/or" option is to encourage proprietary companies to use SISSL code without fear that they will be forced to reveal their "secret sauce" code as actually implemented, since a specification and reference implementation are enough to allow other SISSL community members to make use of new APIs or formats. Hope this helps, Danese On Wednesday, August 21, 2002, at 06:41 PM, Con Hennessy wrote: > Hi, > Is there any site which does a point by point comparison of > the various differnet licenses ? > In particular I am interested in knowing what are the basic differences > between the LGPL and the Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL) ? > What advantages/disadvantages do I have with on or the other ? > Thanks > Con > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Can you under the GPL distribute executables without full sources?
Dear List, I have a question about the nature of the GPL with source code. Assuming that someone is porting GNU/Gnome libs to windows : Can a person distribute just a DLL or lib without the source code being able to compile directly? Or Even worse : if other people base thier DLLS just on the DLLS provided, but no-one is able to recompile the entire thing from scratch, is that legal? Currently I am trying to re-compile some of the gnome/gnu libs ported to windows. Almost non of them compile from the source codes published, there are missing files, missing directories and such. Some people just based their work on these DLLS, and then a whole chain of missing sources gets started up. Can a user just say what version of the sources he used, but not distribute the patches, shell scripts and environmental variables needed to compile? What if the sources are not available as stated. As far as I can tell from the GPL, all sources that do not belong to the standard system install have to be provided, not just the name of the lib used. I am looking forward to your comments, Thanks, mike = James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
