Thanks to a forward from Yves, I understand there has been some =20
discussion on the state of the MusicKit copyright on discuss-gnustep. =20=
Trying not drown myself in mailling lists, I have until now withheld =20
from subscribing to discuss-gnustep, I guess I've been drawn into the =20=
vortex :-)
On Feb 19th I sent the following email to a MusicKit user:
>> You mentioned that the library has been used for some commercial =20
>> projects. Are there any licensing gotchas (carry overs from NeXT =20
>> days etc.) that I would need to be aware of if I was interested in =20=
>> using MusicKit in a commercial framework?
>>
>
> The codebase distributed as the MusicKit consists of multiple =20
> contributions. The SndKit, MKPerformSndMIDI and all changes to the =20
> MusicKit codebase beyond V4.2 are distributed under a BSD like license =
=20
> described at
> http://www.musickit.org/license.html. The final status of the MusicKit =
=20
> codebase _prior_ to V4.2 is currently being resolved between Apple, =20=
> CCRMA and (to a lesser extent) the MusicKit project. Apple have been =20=
> extremely helpful on this front, digging up 12 year old agreements, =20=
> and responding to our feedback, but these things take time to =20
> finalise. I'm hoping to have this resolved very soon.
>
> The commercial projects include Sequence which were distributed prior =20=
> to the MusicKit project taking over the MK maintenance. Recent =20
> commercial projects that I know of have used portions of the codebase =20=
> which are fully under the current license and do not use NeXT code, =20=
> i.e the frameworks (SndKit, MKPerformSndMIDI) I mentioned above.
To this I would add that Apple is planning to convene a conference call =20=
this week including myself (as MusicKit project admin) and Julius O. =20
Smith - one of the original people behind the MusicKit and still at =20
CCRMA, in order to find a consensus. I have already put forward the =20
position to Apple that it is important for independent software vendors =20=
to be able to use the MusicKit code in commercial projects and had =20
proposed that Apple release the MusicKit under APSL 2.0. I should say =20=
that the nature of the discussions have to date been very positive and =20=
carried out with great support by Apple.
These issues are complex and at the moment I can not give a definitive =20=
statement as to where they stand. If developers have a short time =20
schedule and want to release closed code using the MusicKit (distinct =20=
from the SndKit or MKPerformSndMIDI) framework, I would suggest they =20
seek legal advice.
For the record, I made a point of adding Copyright NeXT statements to =20=
several source files that were in the original 4.2 distribution that =20
had no attribution of copyright, assuming that indeed the code had =20
originated from NeXT's release to CCRMA (circa 3.0 release) and stating =20=
copyright on all changes made to the code since that 4.2 release as by =20=
the MusicKit Project. That may indeed prove to have been an incorrect =20=
action on my part, however, these changes are in the CVS logs and can =20=
be deduced with a "find -exec diff" incantation if I need to correct =20
spurious attributions. However in the majority of MusicKit framework =20
source files, the Copyright NeXT statements did exist (in a variety of =20=
forms not all with the words "All Rights Reserved") and I have left =20
them intact in all cases.
>>>
>>> I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't =
think
>>> MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software kit.
I don't know where this information to report comes from. As far as I =20=
know this is Dennis Leeuw's opinion only to state that the MusicKit =20
never "can and ever will be OpenSource". There are many means for a =20
suitable solution to be arrived at - we are following the first =20
approach of polite discussion and consensus. I would appreciate =20
receiving readers opinions as to what they require in terms of license =20=
to realise their goals, so that I can speak to Apple representing as =20
many opinions as developers express to me. I never want to rule =20
anything out, but I doubt the code would ever be released as GPL =20
(distinct from LGPL), since this would restrict it's use from closed =20
source commercial projects which would impact it's support (i.e I =20
couldn't afford to work on it). IMHO there are too many frightening =20
political situations in the real world to spend time getting political =20=
about music software.
> Hi
>
> As a MusikKit list reader, I think you would appreciate
> becoming a GNUStep list reader for a few minutes ;-)
>
> D=E9but du message r=E9exp=E9di=E9 :
>
>> De: discuss-gnustep-request@...
>> Date: 1 mars 2004 19:42:22 GMT-05:00
>> =C0: discuss-gnustep@...
>> Objet: Discuss-gnustep Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
>> R=E9pondre =E0: discuss-gnustep@...
>>
>> Send Discuss-gnustep mailing list submissions to
>> discuss-gnustep@...
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> discuss-gnustep-request@...
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> discuss-gnustep-owner@...
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Discuss-gnustep digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 2. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
>> (Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf)
>> 3. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework (Jason Clouse)
>> 4. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework (Dennis Leeuw)
>> 5. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
>> (Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf)
>> 8. Ann: Ocean db-0.1.3 (Dennis Leeuw)
>> 10. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework (Marco Scheurer)
>>
>>
>> =
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:16:08 +0100
>> From: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <lars.sonchocky-helldorf@...>
>> Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
>> To: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@...>
>> Cc: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@...>
>> Message-ID: <58B0D3BC-6AE3-11D8-85D0-000393CBC4B6@...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII; format=3Dflowed
>>
>>
>> Am Sonntag, 29.02.04 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Dennis Leeuw:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As I noted before I wanted to support MusicKit as a part of Ocean.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Jeff Teunissen I have decided to skip MusicKit due to the
>>> risk of the copyrights within MusicKit. There are too many NeXT and
>>> Apple copyrights to take the risk of inclusion.
>>
>> What did Mr. Teunissen tell you? Where here
>> (http://musickit.sourceforge.net/license.html) do you read something
>> about a NeXT and Apple copyright?
>>
>>>
>>> I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't =
think
>>> MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software kit.
>>
>> I think to demand that all software that should be used with GNUstep
>> _must_ have the copyright assigned to RMS is a little over the top. =20=
>> BTW
>> german law explicitly forbids the assignment of the copyright to
>> somebody else.
>>
>>>
>>> Any one with good ideas for a Music Framework that can be used?
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Dennis Leeuw
>>
>> Lars
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:12:36 -0500
>> From: Jason Clouse <jhclouse@...>
>> Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
>> To: discuss-gnustep@...
>> Message-ID: <9c467cccbc62816c5167d453cf6d4577@...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"; format=3D"flowed"
>>
>> On 2004-02-29 14:06:47 +0100 Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@...> wrote:
>>> Any one with good ideas for a Music Framework that can be used?
>>
>> The MusicKit design is inspired. If you don't want to use it, I =
don't
>> think you should offer a music framework at all. Anything else would
>> be garbage in comparison.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:44:14 +0100
>> From: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@...>
>> Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
>> To: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <lars.sonchocky-helldorf@...>
>> Cc: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@...>
>> Message-ID: <40424F1E.9020302@...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii; format=3Dflowed
>>
>> Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Sonntag, 29.02.04 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Dennis Leeuw:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> As I noted before I wanted to support MusicKit as a part of Ocean.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Jeff Teunissen I have decided to skip MusicKit due to the
>>>> risk of the copyrights within MusicKit. There are too many NeXT and
>>>> Apple copyrights to take the risk of inclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>> What did Mr. Teunissen tell you?
>>
>> He just warned me.
>>
>> Where here
>>> (http://musickit.sourceforge.net/license.html) do you read something
>>> about a NeXT and Apple copyright?
>>>
>>
>> Nope not an that page. But just do a grep -r NeXT * in the MusicKit
>> sources or Apple for that matter.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't =20
>>>> think
>>>> MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software kit.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think to demand that all software that should be used with GNUstep
>>> _must_ have the copyright assigned to RMS is a little over the top. =20=
>>> BTW
>>> german law explicitly forbids the assignment of the copyright to
>>> somebody else.
>>
>> Nope no need for that. But a line like:
>> (c) NeXT all rights reserved
>> Is somewhat problematic for me. I am not a lawer, I don't have the
>> knowledge to investigate what it can mean to me now, nor in the =20
>> future.
>> And it is in a lot of .h files... :(
>>
>> If someone can garantee me that I won't get into trouble, that I can
>> treat it as Open Source... that I might think it over. But for now =20=
>> there
>> are too much things in there that I feel might me get into trouble.
>>
>> Dennis Leeuw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:04:40 +0100
>> From: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
>> <Lars.Sonchocky-Helldorf@...>
>> Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
>> To: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@...>
>> Cc: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@...>
>> Message-ID:
>> <OFC78DFC14.005B3546-ONC1256E4A.0035E159-C1256E4A.00375C0E@...=
>> interone.de>
>> =09
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII"
>>
>> Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@...> wrote on 29.02.2004 21:44:14:
>>
>>> Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am Sonntag, 29.02.04 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Dennis Leeuw:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> As I noted before I wanted to support MusicKit as a part of Ocean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Jeff Teunissen I have decided to skip MusicKit due to =
the
>>>>> risk of the copyrights within MusicKit. There are too many NeXT =
and
>>>>> Apple copyrights to take the risk of inclusion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What did Mr. Teunissen tell you?
>>>
>>> He just warned me.
>>>
>>> Where here
>>>> (http://musickit.sourceforge.net/license.html) do you read =
something
>>>> about a NeXT and Apple copyright?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope not an that page. But just do a grep -r NeXT * in the MusicKit
>>> sources or Apple for that matter.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't =20=
>>>>> think
>>
>>>>> MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software kit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think to demand that all software that should be used with =
GNUstep
>>>> _must_ have the copyright assigned to RMS is a little over the top.
>> BTW
>>>> german law explicitly forbids the assignment of the copyright to
>>>> somebody else.
>>>
>>> Nope no need for that. But a line like:
>>> (c) NeXT all rights reserved
>>> Is somewhat problematic for me. I am not a lawer, I don't have the
>>> knowledge to investigate what it can mean to me now, nor in the =20
>>> future.
>>> And it is in a lot of .h files... :(
>>>
>>> If someone can garantee me that I won't get into trouble, that I can
>>> treat it as Open Source... that I might think it over. But for now =20=
>>> there
>>
>>> are too much things in there that I feel might me get into trouble.
>>
>> What I would do here If I were you in that situation: Ask the =20
>> developers
>> of MusicKit (<leigh@...> and =20
>> <musickit@...>).
>> They _should_ know what is possible and what not: no more guessing =
and
>> assuming necessary ...
>>
>>>
>>> Dennis Leeuw
>>>
>>
>> greetings, Lars
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:59:31 +0100
>> From: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@...>
>> Subject: Ann: Ocean db-0.1.3
>> To: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@...>
>> Message-ID: <40435DE3.6020100@...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii; format=3Dflowed
>>
>> There is a new update for Ocean containing:
>> Gorm 0.6.0
>> ProjectCenter 0.3.6
>> Renaissance 0.8.0
>> StepTalk 0.8.1
>>
>> Have fun,
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 10
>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:33:02 +0100
>> From: Marco Scheurer <marco@...>
>> Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
>> To: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@...>
>> Cc: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@...>
>> Message-ID: <1BC2C6DE-6B9E-11D8-9A7D-000A959D091C@...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII; format=3Dflowed
>>
>>
>> On Feb 29, 2004, at 9:44 PM, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
>>> Nope not an that page. But just do a grep -r NeXT * in the MusicKit
>>> sources or Apple for that matter.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't
>>>>> think MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software =20=
>>>>> kit.
>>>> I think to demand that all software that should be used with =
GNUstep
>>>> _must_ have the copyright assigned to RMS is a little over the top.
>>>> BTW german law explicitly forbids the assignment of the copyright =
to
>>>> somebody else.
>>> Nope no need for that. But a line like:
>>> (c) NeXT all rights reserved
>>> Is somewhat problematic for me. I am not a lawer, I don't have the
>>> knowledge to investigate what it can mean to me now, nor in the
>>> future.
>>> And it is in a lot of .h files... :(
>>
>> I am not a lawyer either, but the fact that this source code is
>> copyrighted does not mean that it can not be used as you want. This
>> depends on the license under which it is distributed. If the license
>> says you can use it and distribute it, you're fine as long as you =20
>> abide
>> to the terms of the license.
>>
>> NeXT, as the copyright owner (or Apple as its successor) could decide
>> to distribute the same files under a different license, sell it, or
>> whatever, but that's not a problem for you: they will not come after
>> you or remove your rights to use it as long as you haven't failed to
>> obey the license.
>>
>> As I understand it the MusicKit license is reasonable, not unlike the
>> Free BSD license. It does not have a publicity clause, merely an
>> encouragement to acknowledge the work of others, and an obligation =
not
>> to remove copyright notices (quite normal). It should be compatible
>> with the GPL.
>>
>> The GPL does not require that you give your copyright to anybody.
>>
>> marco
>>
>> Marco Scheurer
>> Sen:te, Lausanne, Switzerland http://www.sente.ch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
>> Discuss-gnustep@...
>> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>>
>>
>> End of Discuss-gnustep Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
>> **********************************************
>>
--
Leigh Smith
mailto:leigh@...
http://www.leighsmith.com
|