linuxconsole-dev

Re: tuntitko

[Lorenzo D. <ld...@li...>]

On Sunday 02 December 2001 20:57, you wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:43:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Delana wrote:
> > I would write code for XFree4.0 of tuntitko, but before I start I would
> > to know under what type of license is tuntitko... I no see no
> > specification in the ruby/xfree86 CVS source code...
> >
> > I hope that all goes under GPL...
>
> I think tuntitko uses the same license as XFree86, so that it could be
> merged in later. 0rfelyus should know.

right I understand now, clearly all the things near to XFree86 should to be 
licensed under XFree86 license so the merge with it is possible.  So I'm 
accordly to use an XFree license.

Ley me undertand... XFree86 license cannot merge with GPL parts in any case ?

So LinuxConsole are divided in two parts:
- kernel ( GPL code )
- xfree ( XFree86 code )

Are y accordly if I provide to the project the tintitko-40.c source code that 
remains todo  ? I am working on it and I hope to finish in few days...
In code writing I make sharing of all possible things with 
tintitko-{common,devconfig}...

bye
Lore

Re: tuntitko

[Jakob E. <ja...@vm...>]

> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Lorenzo Delana wrote:
> 
> > > I think tuntitko uses the same license as XFree86, so that it could be
> > > merged in later. 0rfelyus should know.
> > 
> > right I understand now, clearly all the things near to XFree86 should to be 
> > licensed under XFree86 license so the merge with it is possible.  So I'm 
> > accordly to use an XFree license.
> > 
> > Ley me undertand... XFree86 license cannot merge with GPL parts in any case ?
> 
> Honestly, I'm not sure now. I think they could be compatible, but I
> don't remember the XFree86 license exactly. Anyway, you can't add GPL'd
> code to XFree86 without imposing GPL restrictions on XFree86 as a whole.

X11 licensed code can be integrated into GPL code.
Not the other way, then "the product as a whole" becomes GPL,
and the XFree86 people don't want that...

X11 is very permitting, says basically; "do what you want.
We are not responsible for what happens."


Jakob

Re: tuntitko

[Johann D. <jo...@Do...>]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Jakob Eriksson wrote:

> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Lorenzo Delana wrote:
> > 
> > > > I think tuntitko uses the same license as XFree86, so that it could be
> > > > merged in later. 0rfelyus should know.
> > > 
> > > right I understand now, clearly all the things near to XFree86 should to be 
> > > licensed under XFree86 license so the merge with it is possible.  So I'm 
> > > accordly to use an XFree license.
> > > 
> > > Ley me undertand... XFree86 license cannot merge with GPL parts in any case ?
> > 
> > Honestly, I'm not sure now. I think they could be compatible, but I
> > don't remember the XFree86 license exactly. Anyway, you can't add GPL'd
> > code to XFree86 without imposing GPL restrictions on XFree86 as a whole.
> 
> X11 licensed code can be integrated into GPL code.
> Not the other way, then "the product as a whole" becomes GPL,
> and the XFree86 people don't want that...

Here comes another legal mystery (to my eyes, at least).
How do you tell what code you incorporate into what code ?
Of course, if we make a kind of XFree86-with-input-patch, it may seem that
we incorporated some GPL code into some XFree86 code, but this is purely a
view of mind. We could see it this way, too:
"We have some piece of userland-code over the input drivers (under GPL). I
would like to have a graphical interface, too. Hmm, how are we going to
fill in the holes ? Hey, there is this soft, XFree86, which license says
we can do what we want with the code. Let's take it !".
And now we have incorporated XFree86 code into GPL code. Quite a twisted
way of seeing things, but I do not see why it would not be valid.


> 
> X11 is very permitting, says basically; "do what you want.
> We are not responsible for what happens."
> 
> 
> Jakob
> 

-- 
Johann Deneux

Re: tuntitko

[James G. <twi...@su...>]

On 3 Dec 2001, at 22:00, Jakob Eriksson wrote:

> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Lorenzo Delana wrote:
> > 
> > > > I think tuntitko uses the same license as XFree86, so that it
> > > > could be merged in later. 0rfelyus should know.
> > > 
> > > right I understand now, clearly all the things near to XFree86
> > > should to be licensed under XFree86 license so the merge with it
> > > is possible.  So I'm accordly to use an XFree license.
> > > 
> > > Ley me undertand... XFree86 license cannot merge with GPL parts in
> > > any case ?
> > 
> > Honestly, I'm not sure now. I think they could be compatible, but I
> > don't remember the XFree86 license exactly. Anyway, you can't add
> > GPL'd code to XFree86 without imposing GPL restrictions on XFree86
> > as a whole.
> 
> X11 licensed code can be integrated into GPL code.
> Not the other way, then "the product as a whole" becomes GPL,
> and the XFree86 people don't want that...
> 
> X11 is very permitting, says basically; "do what you want.
> We are not responsible for what happens."
> Jakob
I was looking into writing a module to replace the legacy keyboard 
support in X using the input specifications a while back.. I ran into 
the block we have here: I was able to sketch out some pseudo 
code, but never went any further when I realized I couldn't get by 
without pulling verbatim some struct{}s from the input headers in 
the linux kernel, specifically the structure of the input packets, 
etc..... is there possibly a design document that has this 
information in a license-neutral format that I could use instead of 
the kernel headers? Or am I okay using the structures? I never was 
able to get an info on this from the Xpert list....




James Gibson
twi...@su...

Re: tuntitko

[Johann D. <jo...@Do...>]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, James Gibson wrote:

> 
> On 3 Dec 2001, at 22:00, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> 
> > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Lorenzo Delana wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > I think tuntitko uses the same license as XFree86, so that it
> > > > > could be merged in later. 0rfelyus should know.
> > > > 
> > > > right I understand now, clearly all the things near to XFree86
> > > > should to be licensed under XFree86 license so the merge with it
> > > > is possible.  So I'm accordly to use an XFree license.
> > > > 
> > > > Ley me undertand... XFree86 license cannot merge with GPL parts in
> > > > any case ?
> > > 
> > > Honestly, I'm not sure now. I think they could be compatible, but I
> > > don't remember the XFree86 license exactly. Anyway, you can't add
> > > GPL'd code to XFree86 without imposing GPL restrictions on XFree86
> > > as a whole.
> > 
> > X11 licensed code can be integrated into GPL code.
> > Not the other way, then "the product as a whole" becomes GPL,
> > and the XFree86 people don't want that...
> > 
> > X11 is very permitting, says basically; "do what you want.
> > We are not responsible for what happens."
> > Jakob
> I was looking into writing a module to replace the legacy keyboard 
> support in X using the input specifications a while back.. I ran into 
> the block we have here: I was able to sketch out some pseudo 
> code, but never went any further when I realized I couldn't get by 
> without pulling verbatim some struct{}s from the input headers in 
> the linux kernel, specifically the structure of the input packets, 
> etc..... is there possibly a design document that has this 
> information in a license-neutral format that I could use instead of 
> the kernel headers? Or am I okay using the structures? I never was 
> able to get an info on this from the Xpert list....

I just realized something: XFree depends on the glibc, doesn't it ? As
does any program in Linux (even Netscape when it was closed-source).
I thought this was OK because the glibc was under LGPL, not GPL. I checked
om my system, and it seems the glibc is protected by the GPL, not
the LGPL. Has it allways been the case ?
That could be a really serious issue...

-- 
Johann Deneux

Re: tuntitko

[Vojtech P. <vo...@su...>]

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Lorenzo Delana wrote:

> > I think tuntitko uses the same license as XFree86, so that it could be
> > merged in later. 0rfelyus should know.
> 
> right I understand now, clearly all the things near to XFree86 should to be 
> licensed under XFree86 license so the merge with it is possible.  So I'm 
> accordly to use an XFree license.
> 
> Ley me undertand... XFree86 license cannot merge with GPL parts in any case ?

Honestly, I'm not sure now. I think they could be compatible, but I
don't remember the XFree86 license exactly. Anyway, you can't add GPL'd
code to XFree86 without imposing GPL restrictions on XFree86 as a whole.

> So LinuxConsole are divided in two parts:
> - kernel ( GPL code )
> - xfree ( XFree86 code )
> 
> Are y accordly if I provide to the project the tintitko-40.c source code that 
> remains todo  ? I am working on it and I hope to finish in few days...
> In code writing I make sharing of all possible things with 
> tintitko-{common,devconfig}...

Yes, that'd be wonderful.

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs