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 »

IFW wrote:Is it a reasonable request that licensees using either version would either add a pointer how/where others could access the licensing options or ask them to include all the licences that may be chosen?
How would this work in practice?
You cannot make that a requirement for the GPL-licensed version (it's that infamous "no additional restrictions" clause again). However, you can say "please" and I suspect most developers would.

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by IFW »

Also: all licensing possibilities should still apply to whomever distributes it, ie no licensing option should be removed.

Arbee
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by Arbee »

The normal way this sort of thing is done is that you list all of the license options and a URL for additional information at the top of each of your source files. Generally there's a comment block there anyway, so you just add the license info.

And yes, someone downstream from a particular user is not limited to that user's choice of license in a dual-license situation. Each user has to choose which license option they're using.

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by IFW »

pak21: In that case one may even remove completely who made it etc. and present it as their own work - or is that not the case?

Arbee and pak21: adding those to the source code wouldn't make GPL users unhappy? ie showing that it's not only GPL compatible?

musuruan
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by musuruan »

If you license under the LGPL your library can be used by every software independent of its license (GPL; MAME, closed source, whatever). This would grant you the maximum use of your library.

Putting commercial restrictions will make any license non open source and your library won't be used by many emulators because of license compatibility (i.e. I can't use a non open source library from an open source application, for example the IPF library from the VICE emulator).

If you want your library be used by 3rd party commercial parties and by open source applications, I suggest you to license it under a viral open source license, like the GPL, making it impossible to be used by non GPL-compatible license applications. The library copyright holders can re-licence under another license their software - this is what Oracole does with OpenOffice (the commercial version) and OpenOffice.org (the open source version). Contributors to OpenOffice.org are must grant Oracle the copyright of their changes to be included in the upstream version (and this is that gives Oracle the ability to provide a commercial version). This is something that piss off developers though, and it is why LibreOffice was born.

Just my 2c, IMNAL.

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

IPF and Openness

Post by Interceptor »

So I take it that pak21 isn't the copyright holder of fuse, and thus he is bound by gpl, if he was, he could freely link to the lib under the mame license?

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 »

IFW wrote:pak21: In that case one may even remove completely who made it etc. and present it as their own work - or is that not the case?
The GPL explicitly requires that you keep all copyright notices intact.
Arbee and pak21: adding those to the source code wouldn't make GPL users unhappy? ie showing that it's not only GPL compatible?
Some GPL users, yes: RMS would certainly like all code in the world to be licensed under the GPL and the GPL only. The majority, no.

You'll also probably make some anti-GPL users unhappy by showing that MAME (or whatever license you choose) licensed code is also available under the GPL :-)

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by pak21 »

Interceptor wrote:So I take it that pak21 isn't the copyright holder of fuse, and thus he is bound by gpl, if he was, he could freely link to the lib under the mame license?
I am the copyright holder for the majority of Fuse, but not all of it. If I were, I could relicense the code and link to any library I choose (but I wouldn't do that, even if I could).

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

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by IFW »

The point would be to keep people happy rather than making them unhappy if possible :)
Note, that I am neither pro or anti-GPL, or in fact any licence - however they must serve our specific use case, that simple.

Tuxie
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:50 pm

Re: IPF and Openness

Post by Tuxie »

Wouldn't the MAME license prevent shareware emulators from using it?
Would my proposed "IPF license" on page 7 prevent MAME/MESS from using it?

Post Reply