nanogui: Thread: Licensing

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> > Speaking from a corporate perspective, I can say that we'd be happy with
> > LGPL, at least... Even GPL for the server part, but of course I do see the
> > issue for other people that might want to link their application directly
> > with the server.
> 
> If we figured out a way to provide runtime module loading rather than
> linking it at compile time, that should be okay I think. I'd rather have
> the server under a license which let people link proprietory code into it
> if they want to though, if only so that people really low on memory can
> use the "application linked into the server" mode, with an application
> that they don't want to release the source to. I don't know how difficult
> it is to provide dynamic module loading though, it's something I've never
> tried.

Try;

man dlopen
man dlsym

And also, do a search for "CrossElf" on some search engine...

dlopen() and dlsym() is the Unix way of doing it. It doesn't work on all
Unix versions though. 

CrossElf is a _really_ cool alternative. It loads ELF files, compiled
under Linux for instance, under any OS that supports dlopen()/dlsym(), and
in additition under DOS and Windows. Of course, the code will only run if 
compiled for the same CPU and as long as it doesn't rely on OS specific
APIs.

That is: The _SAME_ binary runs under DOS, Windows, Linux and any other
x86 based OS you happen to port the CrossElf loader to. Under Windows it
also supports loading native DLL's.

Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
Director of R&D, Screen Media AS

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> CrossElf is a _really_ cool alternative. It loads ELF files, compiled
> under Linux for instance, under any OS that supports dlopen()/dlsym(), and
> in additition under DOS and Windows. Of course, the code will only run if 
> compiled for the same CPU and as long as it doesn't rely on OS specific
> APIs.

Sounds very interesting. Any idea how big it is? I'll have to take a look
at it...

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------

CrossELF sounds quite cool, I'm definitely going to take a look
at it.  It sounds like it could be useful for all sorts of OS projects...
I am also interested in any sources to *small* ELF linkers that run on
multiple operating systems.

Greg

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 1:16 PM, Vidar Hokstad ####@####.#### wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 11 May 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> > > Speaking from a corporate perspective, I can say that we'd be happy with
> > > LGPL, at least... Even GPL for the server part, but of course I do see the
> > > issue for other people that might want to link their application directly
> > > with the server.
> > 
> > If we figured out a way to provide runtime module loading rather than
> > linking it at compile time, that should be okay I think. I'd rather have
> > the server under a license which let people link proprietory code into it
> > if they want to though, if only so that people really low on memory can
> > use the "application linked into the server" mode, with an application
> > that they don't want to release the source to. I don't know how difficult
> > it is to provide dynamic module loading though, it's something I've never
> > tried.
> 
> Try;
> 
> man dlopen
> man dlsym
> 
> And also, do a search for "CrossElf" on some search engine...
> 
> dlopen() and dlsym() is the Unix way of doing it. It doesn't work on all
> Unix versions though. 
> 
> CrossElf is a _really_ cool alternative. It loads ELF files, compiled
> under Linux for instance, under any OS that supports dlopen()/dlsym(), and
> in additition under DOS and Windows. Of course, the code will only run if 
> compiled for the same CPU and as long as it doesn't rely on OS specific
> APIs.
> 
> That is: The _SAME_ binary runs under DOS, Windows, Linux and any other
> x86 based OS you happen to port the CrossElf loader to. Under Windows it
> also supports loading native DLL's.
> 
> Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
> Director of R&D, Screen Media AS
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:

> CrossELF sounds quite cool, I'm definitely going to take a look
> at it.  It sounds like it could be useful for all sorts of OS projects...
> I am also interested in any sources to *small* ELF linkers that run on
> multiple operating systems.

A small ELF linker is exactly what CrossELF is on systems that doesn't
provide libdl (dlsym, dlopen etc.). The ELF loader should be fairly
portable.

Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
Director of R&D, Screen Media AS

My concern over licensing is fairly simple:  I want to create a project,
where, in return for my intensive coding efforts, I can gain access to some
code that I would like to have, also.

This doesn't mean there has to be a one-for-one correspondance in that
anybody who uses nanoX commercially or privately necessarily has to hand
over all the code.  Except that I want to make sure that we get proper contribution
for low level driver draw code, for instance.  It would be nice to not have to write
all the code to use nanoX on all the machines and mice that I have.

So - how can we make a license that allows people to use nanoX on their
own projects, while still trying to get some collaboration by getting the nanoX 
project growing as well?

Greg

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 3:01 AM, Alex Holden ####@####.#### wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> > Personally, I like the FreeBSD model license the best.  It is the
> > traditional BSD licensing, with the advertising/documentation clause
> > removed.  It gives the software the most freedom to be used in any
> 
> I quite like it too, though it does mean that companies can take your
> code, improve it, sell it, and not release the improvements. Some people
> don't like that, as it means a commercial version of the program they put
> a lot of effort into writing is better than their own version of it.
> 
> > Putting it under the GPL would make it very hard for somebody to
> > deploy a PDA device with this gui if they wanted (or needed) to keep
> > the source code secret, or be forced to release portions of their
> > product that give them a competive advantage.  This can be both good
> 
> We're only talking about the server itself, not the programs which run on
> it. It doesn't seem right that a company should be able to improve the
> server without releasing the improvements. One thing which just came to
> mind though, is what if a company writes a module, ie a graphics driver or
> window manager which links in with the server, or if they want to use the
> server in "linked into the application" mode rather than client/server
> mode...
> 
> I think I still prefer leaving it as it is, with the addition of a "we are
> not responsible" clause, which is missing at the moment, or maybe changing
> it to FreeBSD style, which is very close anyway.
> 
> --------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
> : Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
> -------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 

Actually, what I was asking for was an object file linker
to ELF format.  This would replace ld or ld86 on systems.

Greg

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 3:39 PM, Vidar Hokstad ####@####.#### wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> 
> > CrossELF sounds quite cool, I'm definitely going to take a look
> > at it.  It sounds like it could be useful for all sorts of OS projects...
> > I am also interested in any sources to *small* ELF linkers that run on
> > multiple operating systems.
> 
> A small ELF linker is exactly what CrossELF is on systems that doesn't
> provide libdl (dlsym, dlopen etc.). The ELF loader should be fairly
> portable.
> 
> Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
> Director of R&D, Screen Media AS
> 

> files containing mini-X code as they are (possibly rewriting them over
> time and changing the license when none of the original is left), and put
> new code in seperate files under whatever license you want. That shouldn't
> be a problem from the GPL perspective, as it allows linking with code
> under a less restrictive license.

You can put the new code in the same files if you want so long as you 
can separate stuff out. I did actually read the licenses before doing
the initial proof of concept. I've also tried to contact the original
author just to say thanks but had no success

Alan

I am *considerably* rewriting all sorts of code in the same files, as well as adding
new code in the same and new files.  Is this a problem?  Does this mean that we
can add a GPL header and also retain David's use statement, which seem contradictory?

Greg

On Wednesday, May 12, 1999 5:53 AM, Alan Cox ####@####.#### wrote:
> > files containing mini-X code as they are (possibly rewriting them over
> > time and changing the license when none of the original is left), and put
> > new code in seperate files under whatever license you want. That shouldn't
> > be a problem from the GPL perspective, as it allows linking with code
> > under a less restrictive license.
> 
> You can put the new code in the same files if you want so long as you 
> can separate stuff out. I did actually read the licenses before doing
> the initial proof of concept. I've also tried to contact the original
> author just to say thanks but had no success
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 
> 

> I am *considerably* rewriting all sorts of code in the same files, as well as adding
> new code in the same and new files.  Is this a problem?  Does this mean that we
> can add a GPL header and also retain David's use statement, which seem contradictory?


They may seem contradictory but they are not. You probably want to put something
in the header like

	[USUAL GPL header]

	derived from code by [Author] under the following license

	.............

	
	You can obtain the original code from ...

(The last item isnt required but its polite)

I like that.  Do you think then that GPL is the way to go in order to get source
code for drivers back, etc, or is it too restrictive for people who want to use this
stuff commercially?

Greg

On Wednesday, May 12, 1999 11:30 AM, Alan Cox ####@####.#### wrote:
> > I am *considerably* rewriting all sorts of code in the same files, as well as adding
> > new code in the same and new files.  Is this a problem?  Does this mean that we
> > can add a GPL header and also retain David's use statement, which seem contradictory?
> 
> 
> They may seem contradictory but they are not. You probably want to put something
> in the header like
> 
> 	[USUAL GPL header]
> 
> 	derived from code by [Author] under the following license
> 
> 	.............
> 
> 	
> 	You can obtain the original code from ...
> 
> (The last item isnt required but its polite)
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 
>