nanogui: Thread: Licensing

: Greg and I have been talking about the licensing of Nano-X, and we've
: decided to open it to the list for discussion.

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
application.  It has been successful in FreeBSD where most companies
that are using FreeBSD for their embedded machines have contributed
back fixes for the main-line FreeBSD.  Whistle, Jupiter, and Pluto
Technologies all make on going improvements to FreeBSD (I work for
Pluto, so am biased).

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
and bad depending on which side of the debate one lies.  I personally
feel that the code is more free when you can do this, but others
counter that software hording is bad.

I've seen large, open source project span many years with both models,
and some inbetween (look at the X11 license, the old CMU license
(Mach, and other stuff), the BSD license, the Stanford license and the
GPL).  All of these licenses predate Linux, and variations on these
themes have gone back for a long time.

However, I don't think it matters much either way, since I've seen
several embedded companies use Linux and then openly ignore the GPL
when pressed for sources.  The GPL has problems of its own (like its
virus like tendancy to invade all code merely linked in), so it is a
hard call.  The GPL has never been tested in a court of law.  I
believe that the BSD was tested, but there was no ruling because AT&T
settled UCB's claims against them before judgement.

Warner

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/ --------------------

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Warner Losh wrote:

> 
> : Greg and I have been talking about the licensing of Nano-X, and we've
> : decided to open it to the list for discussion.
> 
> 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
> application.  It has been successful in FreeBSD where most companies
> that are using FreeBSD for their embedded machines have contributed
> back fixes for the main-line FreeBSD.  Whistle, Jupiter, and Pluto
> Technologies all make on going improvements to FreeBSD (I work for
> Pluto, so am biased).

As long as feedback for the sources is garanteed, the licensing model
doesn't matter, in my oppinion.

> 
> Warner
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 

- alex

Alexander Peuchert
####@####.####
http://www.peuchert.de ( not very interesting yet ;-) )

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> As long as feedback for the sources is garanteed, the licensing model
> doesn't matter, in my oppinion.

The point is that with something like FreeBSD style, it _isn't_
guaranteed. It's perfectly acceptable for a company to take the code,
improve it, sell it, and not give out the improvements. I'm happy with
this for Nano-X itself (but not the programs and things which run on it),
but I don't think Greg is. I don't think it's legal to take David Bell's
code and GPL it without his permission though, but I could be wrong.

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

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> > As long as feedback for the sources is garanteed, the licensing model
> > doesn't matter, in my oppinion.
> 
> The point is that with something like FreeBSD style, it _isn't_
> guaranteed. It's perfectly acceptable for a company to take the code,
> improve it, sell it, and not give out the improvements. I'm happy with
> this for Nano-X itself (but not the programs and things which run on it),
> but I don't think Greg is. I don't think it's legal to take David Bell's
> code and GPL it without his permission though, but I could be wrong.

Well, that's what a license is made for. You are not allowed to change it.
You would have to rewrite the code, if you want your own license.

I just don't want a company to take advantage of our/my productivity
without giving something back for it. I put something in it and you put
something in it. That's why it's called free!

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

- alex

Alexander Peuchert
####@####.####
http://www.peuchert.de ( not very interesting yet ;-) )

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:
> I just don't want a company to take advantage of our/my productivity
> without giving something back for it. I put something in it and you put
> something in it. That's why it's called free!

Okay, so that leaves the second option, split licensing. Ie. leave the
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.

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

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:
> > I just don't want a company to take advantage of our/my productivity
> > without giving something back for it. I put something in it and you put
> > something in it. That's why it's called free!
> 
> Okay, so that leaves the second option, split licensing. Ie. leave the
> 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.

Just put a license note into every file ...

> 
> --------------- 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: ####@####.####
> 

- alex

Alexander Peuchert
####@####.####
http://www.peuchert.de ( not very interesting yet ;-) )

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> 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...

  What about something like the LGPL?  You can link with it, add modules
etc, but your code doesn't have to be GPL'd.  Basically as long as you
don't copy/modify the server code then your code is under the license you
choose...

-------------------------
Kevin Lindsay
Stormix Technologies Inc.

00 75 CB D4 20 AB 02 8B  2E 22 C0 E7 F3 9A 2D 72

On Tue, 11 May 1999, klindsay wrote:

>   What about something like the LGPL?  You can link with it, add modules
> etc, but your code doesn't have to be GPL'd.  Basically as long as you
> don't copy/modify the server code then your code is under the license you
> choose...

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.

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

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.

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