IPF and Openness

All news about KryoFlux go here.
pak21
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:32 am

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:50 am

karadoc wrote:pak21: This is hard to explain, we admit that, especially to those used to other disk image formats.

*IPF is not just a format*. You cannot expect to be able to know how the disk data is laid out inside the file and simply extract it. It needs processing, it needs algorithms applied to virtually master the data using the embedded scripting, just like the original duplicators did. You need to use our library to do that, or make one yourself, but you do need to do it.
So it's a format and a DSL. That's no different from (say) PostScript, which has been around for donkeys years, and I can't imagine anyone who's written an emulator has trouble writing VMs.

pak21
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:32 am

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:51 am

karadoc wrote:It depends on how you link it. Dynamically linking to a DLL, as far as I am aware, is fine.
The FSF's lawyers believe otherwise.

User avatar
Interceptor
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:17 am

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by Interceptor » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:56 am

Caprice32 v3 is not released under GPL (caprice v4 was) and the source for v3 was obtained directly from the author some years ago with the intention of adding IPF support to it.

the version of caprice32 with IPF support is based entirely on v3.

pak21
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:32 am

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:57 am

IFW wrote:pak21: could you share a bit more about multiple-licensing? Do you mean that a different licence applies to commercial users and others?
Absolutely - this is how Qt was licensed for many years. It is probably worth noting that they eventually decided this wasn't worth it and released it under the GPL, and later the LGPL.

User avatar
karadoc
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:12 pm

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by karadoc » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:03 pm

pak21 wrote:
karadoc wrote:It depends on how you link it. Dynamically linking to a DLL, as far as I am aware, is fine.
The FSF's lawyers believe otherwise.
That section is about linking from non-GPL programs to GPL libraries. That is not the same. Even if the Caprice we were using was GPL, it is the other way round. It would be interesting to see their take on that.

I would find it *highly* improbable that they have a problem with it, since it would make most of the good graphics drivers in Linux illegal.

User avatar
IFW
Posts: 3079
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by IFW » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:08 pm

Interesting.
So if you are a commercial user, can't you just claim that non-commercial users have it under GPL so you must be able to do so as well?
Or: get a non-commercial user to change one line of code ("fork" it... but only to to save money for real), making it a derivative work, copyright cannot be claimed, and then use the modified version instead which is no longer ships under different licence for any user. As long as the person who shipped it under a single licence cannot be affiliated with your organization, should it ever come to litigation you will be able to claim that you acted in good faith...

User avatar
karadoc
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:12 pm

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by karadoc » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:11 pm

pak21 wrote: So it's a format and a DSL. That's no different from (say) PostScript, which has been around for donkeys years, and I can't imagine anyone who's written an emulator has trouble writing VMs.
I'm not really sure what you are arguing for. Yes, it is more than a format. That was my point. I wasn't saying people couldn't do it - I was (quite clearly I thought) pointing out that they would need to do it. It still does not resolve our issue. We have all agreed that it would be nice to document it, but the fact that it is more than a format makes documenting it a large amount of effort that we can't do right now. We would rather publish the source and have other people help us do that. The question is, does that resolve your issues with it not being GPL?

User avatar
Interceptor
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:17 am

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by Interceptor » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:21 pm

this is venturing here, i'm much more interested in the possibilites of licensing, dual licnesing etc, and how we can apply it and use it to suit all involved. we may do better to discuss the IPF format itself, once we've opened it?

EDIT: i'd also like to say that i dont beleive we are ruling out documenting the format, but we would rather, and thus intent to open the lib properly as well, at the same time, to make that process easier.

pak21
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:32 am

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:28 pm

IFW wrote:So if you are a commercial user, can't you just claim that non-commercial users have it under GPL so you must be able to do so as well?
You can claim it. A court would disagree - if you are the copyright holder of some code, you can license it under whatever terms you like ("may not be used with any program which contains red in its user interface"). Some countries will have law which renders certain terms null and void (eg you cannot forbid reverse engineering for compatability purposes in the UK), but I am not aware of any countries which would stop this kind of clause.
Or: get a non-commercial user to change one line of code ("fork" it... but only to to save money for real), making it a derivative work, copyright cannot be claimed, and then use the modified version instead which is no longer ships under different licence for any user. As long as the person who shipped it under a single licence cannot be affiliated with your organization, should it ever come to litigation you will be able to claim that you acted in good faith...
That's simply dealt with: require that all derivative works are licensed under the same terms as the original, and then the license for forked version still contains the term that it cannot be used by commercial users.

User avatar
IFW
Posts: 3079
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by IFW » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:33 pm

Very interesting.
So is this really permissible (if probably undesirable) with GPL? And if yes, which version?

Post Reply