Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jiba wrote: > Hi all, > > I was considering the switch from GPL v2 to GPL v3 as a "simple > update", but I now realize that it means that ALL project using Soya > that want to use the new release must also upgrade the licence to GPL > v3... (I'm right ? Is there a licence lawyer here ?). IANAL, but the GPL FAQ says: > Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2? > > No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to > provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, > the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code > released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of > GPLv2. > > However, if code is released under GPL “version 2 or later,” that is > compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits. This by itself forces the project using a GPL v3 licensed software to move to GPL v3, otherwise they would be in breach of the license. This matrix says that explicitly: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility Combination of GPL v2 or later (important!) code with GPL v3 library is OK only if you upgrade that code to GPL v3. Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHbDHpn11XseNj94gRAk6zAKDsOV+i2S92fsb5i8x9sPq+PAsFUgCgrGsE 5suR1+WsE5PbCproHMYwMXY= =QJAz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
Hi all, I was considering the switch from GPL v2 to GPL v3 as a "simple update", but I now realize that it means that ALL project using Soya that want to use the new release must also upgrade the licence to GPL v3... (I'm right ? Is there a licence lawyer here ?). If so, it may be a little "abrupt", and we should probably give more time for that... I'm now thinking to release the next version of Soya under GPL v2, but to strongly encourage Soya-based projects to move to GPL v3. Comments are welcome ! Jiba On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:36:08 +0100 Jiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think we are close to a new Soya release, featuring many bugfixes and a new > GUI module for making interface. > > I'm also thinking about updating the licence from GPL v2 to GPL v3. As Soya > was under the "GPL v2 or any later version" licence, this should not cause > any problem. However any comment is welcome :-) > > Jiba signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lunpa, The wrote: > Code obfuscation or writting the sensative bits in C/C++/pyrex would > work, but in the former, if you're putting that much effort into > making it so people can't reverse engineer/see your code, you might > aswell do it in a compiled language, like C. > For the latter case, its probably better just to write the whole thing in C. Yup. But people are still "creative" in "protecting" their code. Ultimately, the code could be recovered from disassembled machine code too. > The liscense choice in this case is entirely asthetic; > If you take this entirely upon appearances, soya is ideally a modern, > "avant-garde" 3d engine. > GPL3 is the new and improved hardcore opensource liscense. > > Its not going to hurt anyone if GPL3 is used, and it seems to be more > in the spirit of soya to do so anyway. I object a bit to this approach - choosing/changing a license based on what is "modern" or "hardcore" or "in the spirit" is very dangerous. You are not buying a house based on the color of the walls only and neither a car based on whether it has round or rectangular headlights ... What if the "spirit" or the notion of "modern" changes in few years? You will be stuck with this license for a good while and it may be actually next to impossible to track down the contributors in few years to ask for permission if you want to make another change to fix your possible mistake or to address needs that didn't exist now. Better think twice now than regret it later. Again, I am not against or for the change, but something like this is not and cannot really be an argument here, IMO. So far I have seen precious little analysis on what would be actually the advantages (patent protection?) or disadvantages (compatibility with other code?) of changing the license. Once that happens, then we are actually talking to the point ... Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYFFln11XseNj94gRArPQAKCGzVl0t53ICO1FTnZSgn0hLs9SGACgxXw2 HJj+uDR9jdUA/Fb4AQv/nfw= =JrFM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Julian, Julian Oliver wrote: > hi Jan, > > > i never said it did. refer to my previous email. the GPLv3 protects > users of GPLv3 licensed code engaging other users in patent litigations > for infringing inventions they have filed implicating that same code: Exactly. However, that was hard to understand from your mail - you are illustrating the need by talking about 3rd party patents of companies having nothing to do with GPL-ed code. > ie. i'm not talking about 3rd party protection against patents at all; > that is nothing short of impossible. i'm talking about protecting against > fellow users of the given licensed code exerting control over the use of > that same code with software patents, as outlined specifically in Section > 10 of the GPLv3 license. OK, good. > please read my previous email before expounding at whim. Sorry for the tone, however, your point was not at all obvious from your mail - you say: "in other words, if you really want to avoid restricting your user-base in the long term, choose a license that protects the code from users that wish to file patent litigation against other users of that same code." So far so good, but then you start speaking about bad, but irrelevant 3rd party patents (Blizzard, the Crazy Taxi patent with the car, etc). That confused me. > > as yet you have not provided any reason as to why Soya3D /shouldn't/ be > released under the GPLv3 yet seem to have some reservations regarding > this. i look forward to hearing specific reservations against a move > from GPLv2 to GPLv3. I am *not* advocating neither against nor for it - I have too little stake in Soya to have a relevant opinion. I replied to your mail only because it seemed to me that you are advocating GPL v3 as a magic solution for the patent threat or that you are interested in political statement against patents but misunderstanding the mechanism how it works in GPL. That is a dangerous approach to take, but the point seems to be moot now. Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYE9hn11XseNj94gRAtjOAJwJKigNbIlcvKmcyT8HeHLfWvA/+wCeMTNG YkSatGI4o9BydFCvzmGwb58= =Souw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
On 12/11/07, Jan Ciger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Kao Cardoso Felix wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2007 11:24 PM, Lunpa, The <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I'm still puzzling on how you'd do a closed source software project in > >> python anyway :). > >> > >> (other than by keeping it in-house) > >> > > > > Distributing only the bytecode (.pyc or .pyo) > > > > (: > > > > That probably wouldn't work too well because that is dependent on the > specific Python version you are running. However, there are tools that > compile a self-contained .exe file out of the Python code, including the > Python runtime. > > Furthermore, e.g. Soya consists of a lot of code that is in binary > extensions compiled from Pyrex, not pure Python. You could withhold > source to something like that. > > Another option used a lot are various code obfuscators. > > So there are ways how not to give out source to your Python applications > if you really want. pyc and pyo files are just py files in a way thats optimised for use by the interperiter; they are a very poor protection against reverse engineering, etc. (I've heard its not that hard to make them human readable) Also, py2exe just makes a striped down python interperiter, and bundles the pyc/pyo files with it, usually in a zip file. Code obfuscation or writting the sensative bits in C/C++/pyrex would work, but in the former, if you're putting that much effort into making it so people can't reverse engineer/see your code, you might aswell do it in a compiled language, like C. For the latter case, its probably better just to write the whole thing in C. This is important to consider, because the most common way that the code is going to be proprietary is in a way that its used in an inhouse project as we've discussed before, in which the liscense is really unimportant anyway for reasons already discussed above. I do think it is very fair to assume that most public projects that make use of soya/python will be under a free liscense of some kind anyway. So, to the other consideration, liscense change for political reasons; the political reasons of patents and DRM are very likely to be non-issues for the reasons said above (in that, both types of programs are intended to be secretive, and keep thier inner workings as inaccessable to the end user as possible). The liscense choice in this case is entirely asthetic; If you take this entirely upon appearances, soya is ideally a modern, "avant-garde" 3d engine. GPL3 is the new and improved hardcore opensource liscense. Its not going to hurt anyone if GPL3 is used, and it seems to be more in the spirit of soya to do so anyway. ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
hi Jan, ..on or around Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:49:17PM +0100, Jan Ciger said: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Julian Oliver wrote: > > > this is where the GPLv3's 'intolerant' and 'restrictive' stance is > > sane, and i would argue, necessary in these cannibalistic times. > > > > don't forget also that patent offices are legal enterprises in their > > own right: they want to widen the scope of what's considered > > patentable in order to widen their wallets. this is precisely why > > America is starting to see patents on things like narrative > > structures, musical forms, videogame designs, the smell of fresh > > bread etc.. > > > > here's some reccommended reading: > > > > > This means, that adoption of GPL v3 doesn't give you ANY magic > protection against 3rd-party patents at all. i never said it did. refer to my previous email. the GPLv3 protects users of GPLv3 licensed code engaging other users in patent litigations for infringing inventions they have filed implicating that same code: >>choose a license that protects the code from users that wish to file >>patent litigation against other users of that same code. ie. i'm not talking about 3rd party protection against patents at all; that is nothing short of impossible. i'm talking about protecting against fellow users of the given licensed code exerting control over the use of that same code with software patents, as outlined specifically in Section 10 of the GPLv3 license. > While I agree with your sentiment on software patents and their general > stupidity and threat to software development, please, do educate > yourself how the license actually works. It is fairly dangerous to make > important decisions only on ideology and hear-say. > i'm quite clear as to how it works. please read my previous email before expounding at whim. as yet you have not provided any reason as to why Soya3D /shouldn't/ be released under the GPLv3 yet seem to have some reservations regarding this. i look forward to hearing specific reservations against a move from GPLv2 to GPLv3. cheers, -- http://julianoliver.com http://selectparks.net emails containing HTML will not be read. ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Julian Oliver wrote: > this is where the GPLv3's 'intolerant' and 'restrictive' stance is > sane, and i would argue, necessary in these cannibalistic times. > > don't forget also that patent offices are legal enterprises in their > own right: they want to widen the scope of what's considered > patentable in order to widen their wallets. this is precisely why > America is starting to see patents on things like narrative > structures, musical forms, videogame designs, the smell of fresh > bread etc.. > > here's some reccommended reading: > I think that instead of ranting, you should try to understand how such "patent protection" in GPL v3 actually works. The parts dealing with patents depend on the party distributing the code to also be obliged to grant licenses to any patents required for using/distributing the code further. To quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html: "Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated." This means, that adoption of GPL v3 doesn't give you ANY magic protection against 3rd-party patents at all. It only protects you from a company FOO contributing something to Soya and then claiming that it is patented and you cannot use/distribute it without paying them royalties (Microsoft-Novell case). However, that is fairly easy to protect against by code review when accepting patches and removal of such code if accused of patent violations (see e.g. Linux kernel developers dealing with patent issues). I cannot imagine Jiba or whoever accepting a code contribution from a company without reviewing it. Actually, this case is implicitly covered by GPL v2 already, GPL v3 only makes this more clear and explicit. In case of a patent troll or e.g. Blizzard suing Soya developers or somebody using Soya for violation of their patent, you are equally well screwed as before - unless Blizzard is also distributing (and dependent) on Soya, you are in exactly the same situation as before - GPL v3 doesn't (and cannot because it is a copyright license) give you any larger legal "hammer" to wield, because you cannot harm them by voiding a license for product they do not need/use. If you are thinking about a case when somebody takes e.g. Soya and gets a patent on something in it, then this is all moot - such patent would be trivially invalidated with prior art (Soya itself!). While I agree with your sentiment on software patents and their general stupidity and threat to software development, please, do educate yourself how the license actually works. It is fairly dangerous to make important decisions only on ideology and hear-say. Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHXum9n11XseNj94gRAtbYAKDyI4XOPvCH9cdj2PTkS2KExTH7pwCgs4r3 CPZ7Xveu2KZZOv2ZFUJ//bU= =cbs5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
..on or around Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 03:49:58PM +0100, Jan Ciger said: > > > Regarding the license change, somebody mentioned that GPL3 should be > used because it takes an active stand against patents. Well, again, I am > not going to advocate anything here as my opinion is not really relevant > - - I have very little code in Soya to be considered a copyright holder. > However, adopting GPL3 on these grounds is more making a political > statement (with a little practical impact, IMHO) than licensing or > engineering issue. Code can be a mean of political expression, there is > nothing wrong with that, but it also "boxes you in" in a certain > position and it will restrict the potential user base. Is that what you > want? software patents are a good thing to license /against/, they are a great risk to independent game developers, if only in that they discourage innovation by making it look too dangerous to attempt. in other words, if you really want to avoid restricting your user-base in the long term, choose a license that protects the code from users that wish to file patent litigation against other users of that same code. licensing against software patents (a patentable form not fully recognised in the EU anyway) is /both/ political and economic: it's hard to find a legal position that doesn't imply some form of politically strategic motivation anyway.. small projects such as Soya3D are wise (IMO) to choose a license that protects downstream users from such risks.the GPLv3 also discourages those that wish to collapse a healthy, grassroots, open-source development scene through a patent monopoly over the tools of production. in America it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and research before you can even begin making the game you wish to "take to the market". much of this research surrounds the threat of software patents. compare that to the industry 15-20 years ago: in 1989 the hugely successful game Prince of Persia was made by a father and son team with hardly any monetary investment (for instance). the GPLv3 is great for independent game development. it discourages proliferation of 'software patents' like these having influence over our tools and our imagination: United States Patent 6544040: "A method of storytelling in an interactive system includes presenting a narrative, interrupting the presentation of the narrative in response to a user input, presenting information regarding at least one mental impression of a character in the narrative, and continuing the presentation of the narrative after presenting the information. http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6544040.html U.S. Patent No. 6,200,138: A video game concept in which the player drives a car around a map, and where a target destination is highlighted for the user." eg. anything like this: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070119/crazytaxi.jpg U.S. Patent No. 6,729,954 "Battle method with attack power based on character group density." Only Blizzard can afford to be 'legal'? it doesn't matter that these 'software patents' are absurd; if there's anything contemporary American politics can teach us it's that "You can't Argue against the Absurd": absurdity is outside of the language of logical debate. for this reason it is wise to strategically disallow users of open code to target other users of that same code with patent litigation.. don't even enter the possibility for debate.. this is where the GPLv3's 'intolerant' and 'restrictive' stance is sane, and i would argue, necessary in these cannibalistic times. don't forget also that patent offices are legal enterprises in their own right: they want to widen the scope of what's considered patentable in order to widen their wallets. this is precisely why America is starting to see patents on things like narrative structures, musical forms, videogame designs, the smell of fresh bread etc.. here's some reccommended reading: http://www.armchairarcade.com/aamain/content.php?article.35 http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript.en.html#patents cheers, -- http://julianoliver.com http://selectparks.net emails containing HTML will not be read. ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kao Cardoso Felix wrote: > On Dec 10, 2007 11:24 PM, Lunpa, The <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm still puzzling on how you'd do a closed source software project in >> python anyway :). >> >> (other than by keeping it in-house) >> > > Distributing only the bytecode (.pyc or .pyo) > > (: > That probably wouldn't work too well because that is dependent on the specific Python version you are running. However, there are tools that compile a self-contained .exe file out of the Python code, including the Python runtime. Furthermore, e.g. Soya consists of a lot of code that is in binary extensions compiled from Pyrex, not pure Python. You could withhold source to something like that. Another option used a lot are various code obfuscators. So there are ways how not to give out source to your Python applications if you really want. Regarding the license change, somebody mentioned that GPL3 should be used because it takes an active stand against patents. Well, again, I am not going to advocate anything here as my opinion is not really relevant - - I have very little code in Soya to be considered a copyright holder. However, adopting GPL3 on these grounds is more making a political statement (with a little practical impact, IMHO) than licensing or engineering issue. Code can be a mean of political expression, there is nothing wrong with that, but it also "boxes you in" in a certain position and it will restrict the potential user base. Is that what you want? Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHXqOTn11XseNj94gRAncWAJ9SGMqWStAieAvXy0PTtPe37o8iYACfYlmw mRu7uDcRWRbiFTiccr5SHQU= =QLL0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
On Dec 10, 2007 11:24 PM, Lunpa, The <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still puzzling on how you'd do a closed source software project in > python anyway :). > > (other than by keeping it in-house) > Distributing only the bytecode (.pyc or .pyo) (: -- Kao Cardoso Félix ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
I'm still puzzling on how you'd do a closed source software project in python anyway :). (other than by keeping it in-house) On Dec 10, 2007 5:24 AM, julian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ..on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:36:08AM +0100, Jiba wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I think we are close to a new Soya release, featuring many bugfixes and a > > new GUI module for making interface. > > > > I'm also thinking about updating the licence from GPL v2 to GPL v3. As Soya > > was under the "GPL v2 or any later version" licence, this should not cause > > any problem. However any comment is welcome :-) > > > > i support this move, especially in that the GPLv3 takes an active > stance against software patents. the GPLv3 is a contemporary license > for contemporary conditions.. > > :wq > > -- > julian oliver > http://julianoliver.com > http://selectparks.net > > ___ > > Soya-user mailing list > Soya-user@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user > -- This email message is public domain. Have a nice day! ^_^ ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
..on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:36:08AM +0100, Jiba wrote: > Hi all, > > I think we are close to a new Soya release, featuring many bugfixes and a new > GUI module for making interface. > > I'm also thinking about updating the licence from GPL v2 to GPL v3. As Soya > was under the "GPL v2 or any later version" licence, this should not cause > any problem. However any comment is welcome :-) > i support this move, especially in that the GPLv3 takes an active stance against software patents. the GPLv3 is a contemporary license for contemporary conditions.. :wq -- julian oliver http://julianoliver.com http://selectparks.net ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
If you ever plan on supporting data formats that can work with DRM schemes, this might be worth investigating. Short of that, I haven't heard about any differences between GPL2 and GPL3 that might cause a problem. Then again, I know very little about licenses, so take my thoughts with a cup of salt or more. There are some gpl2/gpl3 tables on groklaw, but I didn't take the time to read through any of those entirely. On Dec 3, 2007 6:36 PM, Jiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think we are close to a new Soya release, featuring many bugfixes and a > new GUI module for making interface. > > I'm also thinking about updating the licence from GPL v2 to GPL v3. As > Soya was under the "GPL v2 or any later version" licence, this should not > cause any problem. However any comment is welcome :-) > > Jiba > > ___ > Soya-user mailing list > Soya-user@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user > > -- D.B., "Proegssilb" ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
On Dec 9, 2007 5:20 PM, Jan Ciger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Felipe, Hi! > This may not apply within a company, see above. The idea is that company > is a legal entity as itself, it doesn't really matter what happens > inside. However, again, I am not a lawyer ... Thanks for the clarifications. My interpretation was that the company as whole has the option of not distributing the software (as I have the option of modifying any GPLed code on my computer and not releasing it). The question that I was raising was that if some employee could go against the company's will and, based on the fact that the company (internally) distributed the software to him, use the rights the GPL grants to redistribute it. Well, this discussion is becoming off-topic and I may be acting naively here =), specially when it comes about the interaction of the GPL and the employee's contract, as you pointed out. Thanks for your time, -- Felipe. ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Felipe, Felipe Lessa wrote: > Hi, > > See section 6 of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, which says > "You may convey a covered work in object code form [...] provided > that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under > the terms of this License[...]". The GPL doesn't obligates you to > distribute your code to everyone who wants it, but it obligates you > to distribute it everyone who *uses* it (be it in compiled form). Felipe, this is not really relevant, because it will not get triggered. Imagine a hypothetical situation of a company X, that is using a hacked up version of Soya3D (or another GPL-licensed code) internally. You, as an employee, cannot just take this code and release it to the wild, based on the fact that the GPL of the original code should allow it. You are not the copyright holder of the modified code, typically - the company is. Whether or not the code is GPL-derived, whether or not the company has complied with the GPL itself and is legally clear is not relevant. You still cannot release somebody else's code without permission - how do you know that the company *intended* the code to be GPL-ed? You would open yourself to a swift termination and a lawsuit if you did this, especially, if the GPL-ed portion of code was added without the management knowing/approving. This is why one typically needs a written permission to release anything of this sort. E.g. at the university I worked before, the policy was that all code written while working there was university property and I had to seek a written permission to be allowed to release it - even if it was originally GPL-derived (I got the permission, BTW). As an employee, you would be a fool to go against this - if the company doesn't allow you to comply with the GPL obligations, it becomes their problem and you are off the hook as an individual. Whether GPL conditions really apply with regards to distribution of the application to own employees, I am not sure - that would probably depend on the definition of "distribution" and that is likely quite different in US, in France and in the rest of the world. Usually, you need to distribute to 3rd-parties/public for the distribution clause to be triggered, but I am not a lawyer and even if I was, my jurisdiction is very likely quite different from yours. Any how, it would be very dangerous to make any assumptions about being allowed to distribute some company code on this. > > They say 'To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that > enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction > with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, > is not conveying.' For me, this means that using a site doesn't > trigger your rights with the source, but using the binaries does. > Say, if I use an application that is linked with GPLed software, then > it must be GPLed too and I must have access to its source. This may not apply within a company, see above. The idea is that company is a legal entity as itself, it doesn't really matter what happens inside. However, again, I am not a lawyer ... > I do not think the license depends on the distribution. If you use > GPLed code, then your code must have the same freedoms the GPL gives > no matter what you do to your code -- be it a small program you used > once and threw away or the ERP of a Big Company (TM) or a free > software game made on the free time of a nice hacker. Actually, this is wrong. GPL (and copyright in general) *DOES* depend on distribution, not use. Copyright doesn't cover use at all (that's why internal use of hacked GPL code without releasing source is legal!), only "making copies" - i.e. distribution. GPL (and any other license, even Windows EULA) are triggered only by the act of distribution. That is why you need to "agree" with Windows EULA and do not need to do that with GPL. With the EULA you need to agree with the click-wrap to give away some freedoms you have by default and that the copyright law doesn't cover (e.g. reverse engineering). It is more a contract than a license, actually. GPL doesn't need this, because it doesn't try to control use of the product, only distribution and actually gives you more rights than the copyright law alone - e.g. the right to re-distribute. If you do not agree with GPL terms, you have no right to distribute the product, but the use is not restricted in any way - the copyright law doesn't cover use. Now what exactly is considered "distribution" is another story. Here is material from gnu.org on this (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic): > Q: Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted > to the public? > A: The GPL does not require you to release your modified > version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, > without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including > compani
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
Hi, On Dec 8, 2007 9:16 PM, Jan Ciger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not think that this is true. In order to be able to distribute > something, it is not enough for the license to allow that - the person > doing the distribution must be also allowed to do so. In the case of a > company, a random Joe Schmoo the employee is not the copyright holder > and cannot release anything under GPL. Therefore he is not allowed to > distribute anything without the permission of the company officials. See section 6 of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, which says "You may convey a covered work in object code form [...] provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License[...]". The GPL doesn't obligates you to distribute your code to everyone who wants it, but it obligates you to distribute it everyone who *uses* it (be it in compiled form). > Also, I am not sure whether use of a GPL application by the employees of > the company can be considered distribution. Very likely the answer would > be negative and then the use alone is not covered by copyright, only > distribution. They say 'To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.' For me, this means that using a site doesn't trigger your rights with the source, but using the binaries does. Say, if I use an application that is linked with GPLed software, then it must be GPLed too and I must have access to its source. > The internal code of a company can be licensed as whatever - if it is > never distributed outside, the GPL clauses are never triggered and the > company does not have any obligations with regards to the source. [...] I do not think the license depends on the distribution. If you use GPLed code, then your code must have the same freedoms the GPL gives no matter what you do to your code -- be it a small program you used once and threw away or the ERP of a Big Company (TM) or a free software game made on the free time of a nice hacker. That all said, I must repeat I'm not a lawyer and I may well be mistaken here. Cheers, -- Felipe. ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Felipe Lessa wrote: > However, the license of the projects using those GPLed codes must be > the GPLed as well, even if it is used only internally. This means that > any worker of the company that uses the software must have access to > the source *and* the right to do anything with it (obviously, > permitted by the GPL). He [the worker] may actually even redistribute > the software to their competitor without violating the license. I do not think that this is true. In order to be able to distribute something, it is not enough for the license to allow that - the person doing the distribution must be also allowed to do so. In the case of a company, a random Joe Schmoo the employee is not the copyright holder and cannot release anything under GPL. Therefore he is not allowed to distribute anything without the permission of the company officials. Also, I am not sure whether use of a GPL application by the employees of the company can be considered distribution. Very likely the answer would be negative and then the use alone is not covered by copyright, only distribution. The internal code of a company can be licensed as whatever - if it is never distributed outside, the GPL clauses are never triggered and the company does not have any obligations with regards to the source. Copying of the code between programmers' workstations is not likely to be considered "distribution", but this depends on the jurisdiction, I think. Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHWyWsn11XseNj94gRAhLeAJ9/M8r1LwEm/E4POuooHoPVhiqHsgCcC51C ji/epbhT6+Jbqv80Vx9qIvI= =gp2y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
On Dec 5, 2007 9:15 PM, Paul Furber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Absolutely right. It's just that I have just come across _huge_ inhouse > projects (including at least one game!) that used GPLed code perfectly > legally because the company wasn't ever intending to redistribute the code, > either because it wasn't their core business to distribute software or > because it was simply an inhouse support project only. (I'm not a lawyer as well =) However, the license of the projects using those GPLed codes must be the GPLed as well, even if it is used only internally. This means that any worker of the company that uses the software must have access to the source *and* the right to do anything with it (obviously, permitted by the GPL). He [the worker] may actually even redistribute the software to their competitor without violating the license. -- Felipe. ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
I think its also important to consider that this is a _python_ library; so any program that uses soya is going to be distributed in a form that isn't all that hard to turn into something human readable, if it is not already human readable. By nature, python doesn't lend a whole lot to closed source and trade secrets. It might be kind of silly to disregard a license change on the grounds that the library couldn't be used in such a project/product. I think the differences between gpl2 and 3 in our case are pretty transient. Personally, I prefer to stay fairly buzzword complaint, other than that it matters very little which license we use. On Dec 5, 2007 6:33 PM, Paul Furber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007 1:33 AM, julian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > from what i understand, many 'closed' development environments would > > consider the GPL ideal an ideal license in this regard. > > > > i am curious however: you gave the example of a game being developed > > using GPL'd code with no intention of redistribtion. what sort of game > > was this? > > It was a research flight simulation that was expanded into a game with > multiplayer and combat. It used a 3d library which was licensed under the > GPL. The company was (and probably still is) not in the business of > developing games or sims - it just needed one and you know how programmers > are :) > > Paul. > > ___ > Soya-user mailing list > Soya-user@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user > > -- This email message is public domain. Have a nice day! ^_^ ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
On Dec 6, 2007 1:33 AM, julian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > from what i understand, many 'closed' development environments would > consider the GPL ideal an ideal license in this regard. > > i am curious however: you gave the example of a game being developed > using GPL'd code with no intention of redistribtion. what sort of game > was this? It was a research flight simulation that was expanded into a game with multiplayer and combat. It used a 3d library which was licensed under the GPL. The company was (and probably still is) not in the business of developing games or sims - it just needed one and you know how programmers are :) Paul. ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
..on Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:15:17AM +0200, Paul Furber wrote: > On Dec 5, 2007 1:18 PM, Jan Ciger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, but the practical consequence is that you cannot use it for a > > non-free project (with closed source) unless it is something for > > in-house use only (what is a game good for if you cannot distribute > > it?). > > > Absolutely right. It's just that I have just come across _huge_ inhouse > projects (including at least one game!) that used GPLed code perfectly > legally because the company wasn't ever intending to redistribute the code, > either because it wasn't their core business to distribute software or > because it was simply an inhouse support project only. you are correct. redistribution itself is not compulsory with the GPL, and so GPL'd code is often used entirely 'indoors' to serve the internal needs of a company. it's arguable most of the worlds GPL code is used and modified without consequent redistribution, and as such, completely legally. from what i understand, many 'closed' development environments would consider the GPL ideal an ideal license in this regard. i am curious however: you gave the example of a game being developed using GPL'd code with no intention of redistribtion. what sort of game was this? :wq -- julian oliver http://julianoliver.com http://selectparks.net ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
On Dec 5, 2007 1:18 PM, Jan Ciger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, but the practical consequence is that you cannot use it for a > non-free project (with closed source) unless it is something for > in-house use only (what is a game good for if you cannot distribute > it?). Absolutely right. It's just that I have just come across _huge_ inhouse projects (including at least one game!) that used GPLed code perfectly legally because the company wasn't ever intending to redistribute the code, either because it wasn't their core business to distribute software or because it was simply an inhouse support project only. We often forget that 90% of the world's code is inhouse rather than packaged product. Paul. ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Theodore Reed wrote: > On Dec 4, 2007 3:51 PM, Paul Furber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 PM, Souvarine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I haven't studied GPLv3 in details but as far as I know the idea is pretty >> much the same that GPLv2. GPL means "Absolutely no use of the code in a non >> free project !" >> >> Not true. You can _use_ GPLed code in whatever way you wish. The license >> only applies to distributing it. Well, but the practical consequence is that you cannot use it for a non-free project (with closed source) unless it is something for in-house use only (what is a game good for if you cannot distribute it?). Ideology aside, this effect is commonly used to restrict commercial use of free projects, but this is quite incorrect way to do it. > > Did that web-app loophole get fixed in GPL3? I know they were talking > about it. If it did, then you are incorrect. > > (The web-app loophole was that you could change GPL2 code for a > web-app, and not release the changes because you weren't > "distributing" it to your users.) Nope, this is covered by the Affero GPL (AGPL) license, not GPLv3. However, back to the original issue - what is the motivation to change to GPLv3? Just because it is newer? I think that the Soya developers should decide whether to allow use of the library in non-free projects as well and then move to LGPL license that is more appropriate for framework/library code (honestly, a library/small portion of the whole should not be dictating the license of the rest/my own code - that is the idea behind LGPL). Otherwise stay with GPL. However, then the project will always remain a hobbyist's toy at best. A library with a business-unfriendly license will not get used in commercial projects - the chance of persuading a game developer to release his code under GPL just to be able to use Soya is zero. GPL is completely fine for self-contained applications, though (e.g. something like Balazar). Do not get me wrong, I am not advocating neither GPL, nor LGPL - each has its own pros and cons. However, let's be clear about the intentions and practical consequences of the license choice. Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVokCn11XseNj94gRAhTGAKDo7rxnC1OjZf1nM5J+Rp2Yn+8AdACbBLB4 M0+64DJaXli5aLwA/mXj9gg= =15hv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
On Dec 4, 2007 3:51 PM, Paul Furber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 PM, Souvarine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I haven't studied GPLv3 in details but as far as I know the idea is pretty > much the same that GPLv2. GPL means "Absolutely no use of the code in a non > free project !" > > Not true. You can _use_ GPLed code in whatever way you wish. The license > only applies to distributing it. Did that web-app loophole get fixed in GPL3? I know they were talking about it. If it did, then you are incorrect. (The web-app loophole was that you could change GPL2 code for a web-app, and not release the changes because you weren't "distributing" it to your users.) -- Theodore Reed (treed/bancus) www.surreality.us ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 PM, Souvarine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't studied GPLv3 in details but as far as I know the idea is > pretty much the same that GPLv2. GPL means "Absolutely no use of the code in > a non free project !" > Not true. You can _use_ GPLed code in whatever way you wish. The license only applies to distributing it. Paul. ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
> But, I don't know if I have the right to GPLv3 my own code based on soya > bindings, if soya stay in GPLv2 ??? Anyone knows ? I'm quite sure you can. Jiba signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
As far as I'm aware, gpl3's "restrictions" are that which disallow things like DRM that harm the end user. I have no objects to soya going gpl3, as I do not feel it restricts me as either a developer or a user; however gpl2 is also adequate for my needs, so it really matters very little to me which one we use. On Dec 3, 2007 8:11 PM, marmoute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4 déc. 07, at 00:36, Jiba wrote: > > > I'm also thinking about updating the licence from GPL v2 to GPL v3. > > As Soya was under the "GPL v2 or any later version" licence, this > > should not cause any problem. However any comment is welcome :-) > > As GPL v3 is much more "restrictive" and viral than the v2 I'm not so > sure I agree soya to "update" to this new version. Does anyone have a > good pro/cos paper about GLP version updating ? > > > ___ > Soya-user mailing list > Soya-user@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user > -- This email message is public domain. Have a nice day! ^_^ ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
Le Tuesday 04 December 2007 03:11:39 marmoute, vous avez écrit : > On 4 déc. 07, at 00:36, Jiba wrote: > > I'm also thinking about updating the licence from GPL v2 to GPL v3. > > As Soya was under the "GPL v2 or any later version" licence, this > > should not cause any problem. However any comment is welcome :-) > > As GPL v3 is much more "restrictive" and viral than the v2 I'm not so > sure I agree soya to "update" to this new version. Does anyone have a > good pro/cos paper about GLP version updating ? > > > ___ > Soya-user mailing list > Soya-user@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user Why do you say more GPLv3 is more "viral" than GPLv2 ? For me they are very close the only changes are : - the no DRM clause - the no patent clause - the "extension" clause (that allow to derive with compatible sub licencing) All this is aligned with the "spririt" of GPLv2 and are only technical changes (except for DRM which is a new "topic"). But perhaps I missed something (I am actually lost with lawyer language :). Anyway, as I did not contribute, I have no "right" to particpate to this choice. But, I don't know if I have the right to GPLv3 my own code based on soya bindings, if soya stay in GPLv2 ??? Anyone knows ? Jacques ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
I haven't studied GPLv3 in details but as far as I know the idea is pretty much the same that GPLv2. GPL means "Absolutely no use of the code in a non free project !". GPLv3 just removed some holes in GPLv2 that were used by some to go around that restriction. Note that GLPv3 is just about source code. Is is possible to have a game with source code on GPLv3 and non free sound and graphic stuff. So the true question is : do we want soya never to be used in non free project ? If the answer is yes we should go straight into GPLv3. I personally prefer LGPL licence. People have the right to use code under LGPL in non free project but they have to share the improvements they made on the code. I believe it is a good trade off, allowing people to make money with your code but benefit from their work. Anyway don't hit me ! I'm not going to start a licence war :) Souvarine. marmoute wrote: On 4 déc. 07, at 00:36, Jiba wrote: I'm also thinking about updating the licence from GPL v2 to GPL v3. As Soya was under the "GPL v2 or any later version" licence, this should not cause any problem. However any comment is welcome :-) As GPL v3 is much more "restrictive" and viral than the v2 I'm not so sure I agree soya to "update" to this new version. Does anyone have a good pro/cos paper about GLP version updating ? ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
Re: [Soya-user] Licence update
On 4 déc. 07, at 00:36, Jiba wrote: > I'm also thinking about updating the licence from GPL v2 to GPL v3. > As Soya was under the "GPL v2 or any later version" licence, this > should not cause any problem. However any comment is welcome :-) As GPL v3 is much more "restrictive" and viral than the v2 I'm not so sure I agree soya to "update" to this new version. Does anyone have a good pro/cos paper about GLP version updating ? ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
[Soya-user] Licence update
Hi all, I think we are close to a new Soya release, featuring many bugfixes and a new GUI module for making interface. I'm also thinking about updating the licence from GPL v2 to GPL v3. As Soya was under the "GPL v2 or any later version" licence, this should not cause any problem. However any comment is welcome :-) Jiba signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
