Dumb Licensing Questions

Dumb Licensing Questions

[Wes Frazier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --]

I have been poking around with guile and trying to learn scheme. However
I have a licensing question and please forgive me if this has been
answered elsewhere, ive tried searching quite a bit, and checked the GPL
Faq and couldn't find it.

I've noticed that several language bindings listed under libraries on
the website such as guile-sdl and guile-ncurses are licensed under the
GPL. And ive looked quite closely at guile-sdl and can't seem to find a
linking exception.

Ive mostly stuck to compiled languages until now. However, I know that
if I were writing compiled code, using a GPLed library with no linking
exception, my resulting code would have to be GPLed as well. This is why
many libraries are under the LGPL instead (including libsdl proper.)

Is this the case for interpreted languages? including scheme code
interpreted via guile? Is code using guile-sdl thus forced to be under
the GPL?

If not why are so many other guile libraries released LGPL?

And if so why was guile-sdl licensed GPL when it's upstream library was
LGPL? Was this intentional?

- Wes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 648 bytes --]

Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[spk121]

For guile-ncurses, only a couple of test programs are GPL. The library itself is LGPL, if I recall correctly.

Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1618 bytes --]


Wes Frazier writes:

> Ive mostly stuck to compiled languages until now. However, I know that
> if I were writing compiled code, using a GPLed library with no linking
> exception, my resulting code would have to be GPLed as well. This is why
> many libraries are under the LGPL instead (including libsdl proper.)
> 
> Is this the case for interpreted languages? including scheme code
> interpreted via guile? Is code using guile-sdl thus forced to be under
> the GPL?

You need to differenciate more strongly between code and the combined
work your users actually get.

For compiled code as well as for interpreted code which uses GPL’ed
code, your own code has to be under a GPL-compatible license.

If you ship the different parts together, the resulting *combined work*
will be GPL, but your part of the code will stay under the
(GPL-compatible) license you selected.

This means you have to provide your code to people who get your
*combined work*, but the license of your part of the code need not be
GPL — only GPL-compatible.

If through refactoring you incorporate some GPL code into code which is
only GPL-compatible, having different licenses for different parts of
the codebase will likely become hard to maintain so the pragmatic
decision is simply using the GPL.

> And if so why was guile-sdl licensed GPL when it's upstream library was
> LGPL? Was this intentional?

I do not know that. It could have been intentional or not — I can find
good reasons for and against that.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 800 bytes --]

Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 12/15/2016 08:18 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> 
> Wes Frazier writes:
> 
> […]
> For compiled code as well as for interpreted code which uses GPL’ed
> code, your own code has to be under a GPL-compatible license.
> 
> If you ship the different parts together, the resulting *combined work*
> will be GPL, but your part of the code will stay under the
> (GPL-compatible) license you selected.
> […]

IANAL but on Wikipedia this sounds far from clear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Linking_and_derived_works

Regards,
Florian

Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 07:15:04AM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 08:18 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > 
> > Wes Frazier writes:
> > 
> > […]
> > For compiled code as well as for interpreted code which uses GPL’ed
> > code, your own code has to be under a GPL-compatible license.
> > 
> > If you ship the different parts together, the resulting *combined work*
> > will be GPL, but your part of the code will stay under the
> > (GPL-compatible) license you selected.
> > […]
> 
> IANAL but on Wikipedia this sounds far from clear:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Linking_and_derived_works

That's probably because YANAL.

(sorry, couldn't resist).

It's clear that there are different standpoints. The linking thing (dynamic
or static) hasn't, AFAIK, tested in court. It's quite possible that different
courts reach different conclusions (in the same or different places in the
world). It's even possible (gasp!) that the legal interpretations of things
change over time.

If I were you, I'd just comply with what the FSF proposes, and that is pretty
clear [1]. Any reasons not to comply with that?

Sorry if this sounds a bit grumpy.

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlheK9wACgkQBcgs9XrR2ka0mwCePUimAFfDpz6tYrPFgCXDUz+x
xWEAn1c8azuXDWsP6sw7JM+yYgtGl7/r
=olUk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 12/24/2016 09:03 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> That's probably because YANAL.
> 
> (sorry, couldn't resist).
> 
> It's clear that there are different standpoints. The linking thing (dynamic
> or static) hasn't, AFAIK, tested in court. It's quite possible that different
> courts reach different conclusions (in the same or different places in the
> world). It's even possible (gasp!) that the legal interpretations of things
> change over time.
> 
> If I were you, I'd just comply with what the FSF proposes, and that is pretty
> clear [1]. Any reasons not to comply with that?
> 
> Sorry if this sounds a bit grumpy.
> 
> regards
> -- tomás
> 

Sorry, I just wanted to call attention to other opinions. Following the
FSF is the safe and sane choice.

Regards,
Florian

Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[Greg Troxel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1102 bytes --]


<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> It's clear that there are different standpoints. The linking thing (dynamic
> or static) hasn't, AFAIK, tested in court. It's quite possible that different
> courts reach different conclusions (in the same or different places in the
> world). It's even possible (gasp!) that the legal interpretations of things
> change over time.
 
Completely agreed.   And, to expand, copyright law doesn't talk about
linking, it talks about things like "derived works", which leads to "if you
do X, is it a derived work".

> If I were you, I'd just comply with what the FSF proposes, and that is pretty
> clear [1]. Any reasons not to comply with that?

A very good point.  Stepping back, there is a question of what's legal
and where the line is.  But there's another question of what individuals
and the Free Software community think of as good behavior.  If someone
writes software and makes it available under a Free License, politenss
at least demands that those who copy/modify/distribute/use the software
respect their wishes about what the license means.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 162 bytes --]

Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 09:17:50AM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> On 12/24/2016 09:03 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > That's probably because YANAL.
> > 
> > (sorry, couldn't resist).

[...]

> Sorry, I just wanted to call attention to other opinions. Following the
> FSF is the safe and sane choice.

Seems we are both sorry :-)

No need (on your part, at least). It *is* true that there are different
opinions. Perhaps I've become a bit over-sensitive over the years,
because I get more and more the impression that there *is* a push to
spread FUD in this field (for example, I'm working at a mid-sized company
and my boss told us to keep clear of GPL software. When I asked him
why, he hand-waved and mumbled something about "liabilities".  Note that
we don't distribute any software externally, so GPL would not entail
*any* extra duties. I'm sure it's not bad intention on his part, but
I'm sure too that his opinion has been  shaped by the people he speaks
most to. And those are... some software vendors. *They* don't like
software freedom.

When I see said company at the same time making liberal use of free
software and doing the job of "useful idiots" for their vendors,
I tend to get a bit... sensitive :-)

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlhec9sACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZohQCcC5QAdx3vPnlz2/tZU9NNT/EJ
/FMAnAh6YhnpDZ9MfG9w/Xx2KYqoJkTB
=ts4v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Dumb Licensing Questions

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1948 bytes --]


Greg Troxel writes:

> <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:
>
>> It's clear that there are different standpoints. The linking thing (dynamic
>> or static) hasn't, AFAIK, tested in court. It's quite possible that different
>> courts reach different conclusions (in the same or different places in the
>> world). It's even possible (gasp!) that the legal interpretations of things
>> change over time.
>  
> Completely agreed.   And, to expand, copyright law doesn't talk about
> linking, it talks about things like "derived works", which leads to "if you
> do X, is it a derived work".
>
>> If I were you, I'd just comply with what the FSF proposes, and that is pretty
>> clear [1]. Any reasons not to comply with that?
>
> A very good point.  Stepping back, there is a question of what's legal
> and where the line is.  But there's another question of what individuals
> and the Free Software community think of as good behavior.  If someone
> writes software and makes it available under a Free License, politenss
> at least demands that those who copy/modify/distribute/use the software
> respect their wishes about what the license means.

Finally there’s the question what’s safe practice. There are three
cases:

1. safe ground: you don’t need to worry about legal issues.
2. murky waters: someone might sue you and you might win or lose.
3. clear breach: if you get sued, you lose.

Case 1 is "just assume you create a derived work and follow the
GPL". Just comply with what the FSF proposes.

Case 2 is madness if you don’t have a well-staffed legal team at your
disposal.

Case 3 is madness if you aren’t already in organized crime. And might be
madness even then (remember that many criminals got caught over tax
fraud. It would be ironic to see branches of the mafia get taken down
for breaching the licenses of the tools they distribute, while getting
away with murder).

Best wishes,
Arne

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 800 bytes --]