IPF and Openness

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:40 pm

karadoc wrote: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.
Their position is well-known: it is a violation of the GPL, for exactly the same reasons: with it, you can drive a hole right through the middle of the GPL.
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.
Linus Torvalds has specifically stated that he is happy for there to be non-free modules using the kernel interfaces; the FSF would prefer that he didn't. The kernel situation is somewhat more convoluted than most as the GPL contains specific clauses about components supplied with the operating system: when you _are_ the operating system, what happens?

User avatar
mr.vince
Posts: 2116
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:48 pm

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by mr.vince » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:42 pm

About forking... this would again be nonsense, as the best implementation is there (it works - for every image). I don't see why it would make sense to have 20 of them, with e.g. two good and 18 flawed, except for the usual confusion that I get when looking for a program that can fit a particular purpose.

I guess there is no way of doing anything about this with the GPL...?

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:47 pm

IFW wrote:Very interesting.
So is this really permissible (if probably undesirable) with GPL? And if yes, which version?
With the GPL, no. That specifically states in Section 10: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." (v3; there is similar language in v2).

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by IFW » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:50 pm

Then what licence was it, since you mentioned QT did the exact same thing?

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:59 pm

karadoc wrote: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?
If you want Fuse to support IPF files, what I need is some code available under a GPL-compatible license which can get the right bits to my FDC emulation. Ideally, that would be your library, but that's not going to happen. Given that, what I need is a good enough documentation that I (or somebody else) can create their own implementation. Providing the source to the library may be enough to get me there, but from what you're saying it sounds like a non-trivial project. How complicated depends a lot of how complicated your DSL and the underlying format are, and how well your code is written, neither of which I can comment on right now.

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:01 pm

IFW wrote:Then what licence was it, since you mentioned QT did the exact same thing?
TrollTech wrote their own license.

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by IFW » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:10 pm

Presumably their licence is not re-usable or comaptible with GPL, right?

"Ideally, that would be your library, but that's not going to happen"
I can't really see why if we can come to a common ground... unless for the challenge itself, but for challenge I have projects for the next 10 years all related - and none of that would involve re-inventing the wheel, for the sake of it, all would be brand new developments related to preservation.

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:21 pm

IFW wrote:Presumably their licence is not re-usable or comaptible with GPL, right?
Correct - the GPL does not allow you to restrict usage to non-commercial users (see the part of Section 10 I quoted above).
"Ideally, that would be your library, but that's not going to happen"
I can't really see why if we can come to a common ground...
Because your primary requirement is that the library is not available to commercial users without payment of a fee (which is your right). My primary requirement is that it is available under a GPL-compatible license, which means it must necessarily be available to commercial users without payment of a fee. I don't see how it's possible to reconcile those two positions, unfortunately.

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by Interceptor » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:29 pm

(EDIT: post overlap, but i'll leave this as it is.)

because he uses GPL, and we aren't currently intending to, so he feels he cant use the library, regardless of what we may or may not think otherwise. if we really want to pursue that as a matter of confirmed fact, maybe we should, but i think thats too deep for this thread, just post the results :P

if IPF and the lib is open, in such a way that we all agree it is indeed open and now preservation circle is complete, then the issue with FUSE is simply that FUSE wont support IPF with our lib, because the author chose to use GPL. by choice maybe, or maybe because he used others code and that was GPL, and thus he's not really the total copyright holder of the product entirely, as is probably the point.

it would be shame then that fuse has to have its own implementation if it wanted to support IPF, but forgive me for not really being to bothered about that scenario since it only applies to GPL projects. this is a purely self imposed limitation of GPL products. every silver lining has as cloud.

i'd like GPL to be suitable for us, purely down to its popularity.

i AM bothered that you cant accept IPF as a preservation standard because its not open, a truly very valid point, and i'd like to be in this position.

1) you accept and embrace IPF as the standand because you beleive it.
2) you implement it in fuse.

but 2) isnt really as important.

i beleive i'm right in what i'm saying, please correct me where i'm wrong.

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by IFW » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:34 pm

And why does it matter that someone who makes money off 10 years of development would have to pay a small fee to further the original authors' work?
That wouldn't include emulator, tool etc authors at all, and in fact it does not for anything announced or unannounced yet, but it would include say Big Company X who would release such thing with, rest assured, a very healthy profit margin.
It might never ever happen (fine), but if it does we want to be in a position to at least not pay for all of these out of our own pocket forever - just like Farb said.

Anyway these things are way off topic - this thread is all about finding a suitable licence, that would make as many people happy as is possible.

What is your take on the MAME licence?

Post Reply