nanogui: Thread: Licensing

On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Stuart Hughes wrote:
> My understanding is that even under LGPL you still suffer 'pollution'
> unless your very careful.  By this I mean, if you had a propriety part
> that will form part of the 'library' that other people are going to use,
> this gets polluted and falls under LGPL.  The only way that proprietary
> code is kept clean is if it an application uses the LGPL'ed stuff as a
> library.

That's part of what I meant about the APIs. It would be difficult, and
pose some needless restrictions, to get it seperated carefully in such a
way that a proprietory graphics card driver or window manager wouldn't be
regarded as part of "the library". I suppose we could just draw the line
and say "no proprietory graphics card drivers or window managers allowed",
though it would be a shame to have to do that for the sake of using the
LGPL (of course this is just the kind of thing the FSF want to happen-
their code is free so so should everybody else's).

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

On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> Well lets face it the only compiled into the application situation we are
> likely to have is Linux 8086. That is a known hotbed of proprietary commercial
> software 8)

Nano-X could well become useful in small embedded systems (ones that are
too small to run something like Linux but still have a GUI, like
photocopiers). The "there is only one process" model is still quite common
in such systems.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> Nano-X could well become useful in small embedded systems
> (ones that are too small to run something like Linux but
> still have a GUI, like photocopiers). The "there is only
> one process" model is still quite common in such systems.

I work as a computer consultant for a wide range of companies, and I've
just finished designing and writing and entire EPOS system, the only
thing missing is a nice graphical front-end -- being this is going into
a Till, it has to be small, and it does indeed only run one process (god
bless the 8088, I could port it all to ELKS, I guess), I plan/want to
use MicroWin/NanoGui/Something for the frontend, to be statically linked
against the EPOS-Terminal program....

	-Darran


--
Darran D. Rimron                              ####@####.####
Mobile: +44 7808 49 25 49                  Pager: +44 76543 07647
Rimron Design & Consultancy              http://www.rimron.co.uk/
Phone: +44 1708 766 959                     Fax: +44 1708 766 959

> thing missing is a nice graphical front-end -- being this is going into
> a Till, it has to be small, and it does indeed only run one process (god
> bless the 8088, I could port it all to ELKS, I guess), I plan/want to
> use MicroWin/NanoGui/Something for the frontend, to be statically linked
> against the EPOS-Terminal program....

But you would be supplying an application linked with a library clearly
from a third party clearly with a seperate API, so source to the library
(and chanegs you make to the library) would need to be free but not the
application under LGPL. Is that still a problem ?

On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> > thing missing is a nice graphical front-end -- being this is going into
> > a Till, it has to be small, and it does indeed only run one process (god
> > bless the 8088, I could port it all to ELKS, I guess), I plan/want to
> > use MicroWin/NanoGui/Something for the frontend, to be statically linked
> > against the EPOS-Terminal program....
> But you would be supplying an application linked with a library clearly
> from a third party clearly with a seperate API, so source to the library
> (and chanegs you make to the library) would need to be free but not the
> application under LGPL. Is that still a problem ?

I suppose in the case of an application, it might just be acceptable to
pretend that the server is a library instead of an application, since the
application you are linking to it sees the server as a library.

The problem is that Nano-X is a graphics server application rather than a
library, and it would be a mess to try to structure it as a library with
a stub application which does nothing except drive the server when it's
in client/server mode. In the client/server model it's a different matter,
but it's a problem with the server linked to the client model because the
LGPL does care about the what is linked to what (unlike the MPL, which
protects individual files).

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

> I suppose in the case of an application, it might just be acceptable to
> pretend that the server is a library instead of an application, since the
> application you are linking to it sees the server as a library.

Ok so we all know what we are trying to do. Putting a clarification of what
is the 'library' in with the license document make everyone happy ?

Everyone seems to know what they want so it seems a bit pointless spending
ages on this

Alan

> -----Original Message-----
> But you would be supplying an application linked with a
> library clearly from a third party clearly with a seperate
> API, so source to the library (and chanegs you make to the
> library) would need to be free but not the application
> under LGPL. Is that still a problem ?

Before I start this explanation, I stress this isn't my philosophy, but
my investors have tied my hands on what source I can release, and to
who.

The simple truth is the EPOS application is currently retailing for
200ukp per copy for the till software, and the server is even more
again.  Currently it's using an N-Curses type front-end, but I want to
"upgrade" it.

I don't care what I have to promise to do to use Nano as my display
"library", but my application is mine, and I have no desire to release
any source code of it to anyone else.

My WorkstationOS can only run a single task, and my users have no desire
to have a bundle of C files shipped with every till.  Also, being as the
tills are diskless, I don't want to just "have the files there for the
licence purposes" because that'll take up valuable flash space.

So, this is where *I* stand, I want a single executable that I'm allowed
to keep the source to my part "secret" - I don't really want to release
the device driver code, because I am using a barcode scanner and don't
want to have to release my code to drive that.

I don't want to have to distribute the source to anything I link
against, because my users won't be interested, and it would be
impractical.  I'm happy to have licence agreements in the documentation,
or the software, if I *MUST*, but other than that....

Now I'm no legal eagle, but what licence would you call that? I know
what I want, but I don't know if I can have it.

	-Darran

On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Darran D. Rimron wrote:
> So, this is where *I* stand, I want a single executable that I'm allowed
> to keep the source to my part "secret" - I don't really want to release
> the device driver code, because I am using a barcode scanner and don't
> want to have to release my code to drive that.
> Now I'm no legal eagle, but what licence would you call that? I know
> what I want, but I don't know if I can have it.

The MPL would cover it perfectly, and the LGPL might just cover it if you
do a bit of lawyer-style redefining of what things mean, turn your head on
one side and squint a bit whilst looking at the license. I wouldn't count
on it standing up in court, but then nobody is intending on taking anybody
to court anyway (I hope).

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

> I don't care what I have to promise to do to use Nano as my display
> "library", but my application is mine, and I have no desire to release
> any source code of it to anyone else.

Ok. Thats fine and understandable

> My WorkstationOS can only run a single task, and my users have no desire
> to have a bundle of C files shipped with every till.  Also, being as the

Yep. I can understand that 8)

> I don't want to have to distribute the source to anything I link
> against, because my users won't be interested, and it would be

> Now I'm no legal eagle, but what licence would you call that? I know
> what I want, but I don't know if I can have it.

Thats basically the MPL. The only difference there is the MPL requires you
make the changes to the library available (ie the stuff you change in the
thing itself) but sticking it up for ftp is fine as a 'making available'

The Netscape/Mozilla folks wrote the MPL with a background of "you have
to give us fixes back but we want you to be able to embed mozilla in
everything"

Alan

On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> The Netscape/Mozilla folks wrote the MPL with a background of "you have
> to give us fixes back but we want you to be able to embed mozilla in
> everything"

We really want "you have to give us fixes back but we want you to be able
to embed anything in Nano-X", which the MPL fits just as well.

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