Hi, Thanks for all feedback. I've read a bit about licensing and I came up with some thoughts.
1. To write a fully functional client application, a network protocol must be implemented to communicate with other side. In this case, the only available reference is a source code of Xpra and wiki pages. 2. Unfortunately the documentation found on the wiki is not sufficient, as for example I had to learn from Java sample code what capabilities must be sent in a Hello packet in order to connect to the server. Without it, it's impossible to get a reasonable response, not to mention about other features. 3. If the Xpra protocol was described in some official document like RFC6143 for the RFB protocol, then I could base on it instead of the Xpra sources. To sum up, it appears that my code is a "derived work" and thus the only option is to choose a GPL license. :-( Then, I'll change license information on Github with my next commit. Thanks, Jakub Księżniak 23 cze 2015 10:02 "Antoine Martin" <[email protected]> napisał(a): > Hi, > > On 22/06/15 22:47, Jakub Księżniak wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I've been writing an Android Xpra client for some time now (maybe you > > remember our previous conversation on a mailing list). It took me quite a > > lot of time to make a barely working app, but here it is. :) You can > > download source code from Github and build it by yourself: > > https://github.com/jksiezni/xpra-client > Good stuff! > I think this should replace the current "official" Android client, which > was never more than a quick and dirty proof of concept. > > Moreover, I've got some concerns regarding licensing. I'd like to share > my > > code on terms of Apache License 2.0 and I'd like to know if it is OK with > > you. > This is not entirely up to me and IANAL. > My understanding is that if you've developed your code using a "clean > room design", then you can use any license you want for your code. > Otherwise, you probably fall under the "derived work" and therefore are > bound by the GPL. > > I did write a lot of information on the wiki to try to make it easier to > implement new clients without referring to the actual code (though most > of it may be slightly out of date), starting here: > http://xpra.org/trac/wiki/NetworkProtocol > > To make matters more complicated: although I would be quite happy to > re-license all of my code under a different license, which would cover > 100% of the Java client for example (assuming you read some code and > that this is what you used)... but then again, by definition (since I > wrote a large portion of the GPL2+ xpra code) not using a "clean room > design", I don't think I could re-license it under anything less > restrictive than the GPL. And even if this was possible, I'm not sure > you could apply it retroactively - but maybe? > > And it also depends what jurisdiction you fall under... etc. > > Also, I've added an Xpra icon to the android project, which makes an app > > much more recognizable. But it requires your permission, if I'm not > > mistaken. So, do you agree, to use the Xpra icon in this project? > No problem from me here... this icon is a bit too close to the official > X11 icon, and I should probably have sought permission from them... > I just wanted to get something done quickly, many years ago, and did not > foresee the project getting as successful as it is now. > The project also covers a lot more than just plain-X11 servers now, so > this may be a good time to come up with a better icon? > (there are also requirements for 1024x1024 to get into the Apple appstore) > > Any feedback would be appreciated. > I'm hoping others can chime in, hopefully with more experience in this > area. > > Cheers > Antoine > > PS: Some pointers: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design > http://hoviblog.blogspot.fr/2008/10/clean-room-defeats-software.html > " For purposes of proving such a claim of copyright or trade secret > misappropriation, it is not necessary to prove that actual copying > occurred. It is sufficient to show that (1) the accused party had access > to the code, and (2) the accused party's code is substantially similar > to the claimant's code." > I have no idea what "substantially similar" means here! > > > > > Regards, > > Jakub Księżniak > > _______________________________________________ > > shifter-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.devloop.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/shifter-users > > _______________________________________________ > shifter-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.devloop.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/shifter-users > _______________________________________________ shifter-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.devloop.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/shifter-users
