octave-dev

[OctDev] GPL violations

[Judd S. <js...@gm...>]

Sorry to be the hatchet man, but... I'll tear the band-aid quickly:

The following packages violate the licensing terms of the various octave
releases (GPLv2,3) and cannot be distributed even as source code.

GPC :: http://octave.sourceforge.net/gpc/index.html
spline-gcvspl :: http://octave.sourceforge.net/spline-gcvspl/index.html

Both packages must be purged from octave-forge.

Regretfully,


--judd

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[David B. <dba...@db...>]

Judd Storrs wrote:
> Sorry to be the hatchet man, but... I'll tear the band-aid quickly:
>
> The following packages violate the licensing terms of the various octave
> releases (GPLv2,3) and cannot be distributed even as source code.
>
> GPC :: http://octave.sourceforge.net/gpc/index.html
>   
The author of this package has been approached in the past about the 
compatibility of his code with the GPL and he had no desire to change 
his license or allow distribution.. I'd be happy to see this package go, 
but maybe you should talk with Rafael Laboissiere first.

Now that we've confirmed than use of the MEX interface with non-free 
software is legitimate with Octave, a MEX interface can be written. If 
the MEX interface itself is under an open-source license and GPC itself 
isn't on octave-forge I don't see why the GPC package can't stay. But 
again I'd also be happy enough to see it go.

> spline-gcvspl :: http://octave.sourceforge.net/spline-gcvspl/index.html
>   
Well as this software was written in the late eighties when strange 
non-commercial licenses were the norm, the license issue here is normal. 
Unfortunately, when the author was approached a few years back it turned 
out that he was dead, and no attempts to contact his next of kin were 
made. Though as the code is copyrighted May 1986 in the Netherlands, a 
question to ask is how long is copyright in the netherlands? If its 25 
years, then this code becomes public in May next year any way.  If 
someone wanted to try, contacting the authoring next of kin might be an 
option. However, Octave has good spline code now and so this package can 
probably go if it causes problems

> Both packages must be purged from octave-forge.
>   
"modified" yes ... "must be" is a bit strong though

D.

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Judd S. <js...@gm...>]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:50 PM, David Bateman <dba...@db...>wrote:

> The author of this package has been approached in the past about the
> compatibility of his code with the GPL and he had no desire to change his
> license or allow distribution.
>

That is unfortunate. Clearly, the author of the library explicitly does not
want his code used in octave.

Now that we've confirmed than use of the MEX interface with non-free
> software is legitimate with Octave, a MEX interface can be written. If the
> MEX interface itself is under an open-source license and GPC itself isn't on
> octave-forge I don't see why the GPC package can't stay. But again I'd also
> be happy enough to see it go.
>

That's an interesting approach. I really hate it though, because it ends up
doing exactly the same thing (enabling use of non-free software in octave)
but now also benefits the Mathworks. Well, if someone want's to do this
maybe the MEX interface here can help:

http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/8818-polygon-clipper

I have no idea if it works in octave or if the functionality there is
equivalent.

 spline-gcvspl :: http://octave.sourceforge.net/spline-gcvspl/index.html
>>
>>  Well as this software was written in the late eighties when strange
> non-commercial licenses were the norm, the license issue here is normal.
> Unfortunately, when the author was approached a few years back it turned out
> that he was dead, and no attempts to contact his next of kin were made.


Also unfortunate. Next of kin are probably irrelevant, though, as it seems
to have been written while the author was an employee of Philips and
probably represents work-for-hire.

Though as the code is copyrighted May 1986 in the Netherlands, a question to
> ask is how long is copyright in the netherlands? If its 25 years, then this
> code becomes public in May next year any way.


Maybe confusing copyright and patent durations? In the Netherlands,
copyright extends 70 years after death (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_copyright_law).


--judd

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[David B. <dba...@db...>]

Judd Storrs wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:50 PM, David Bateman <dba...@db...>wrote:
>
>   
>> The author of this package has been approached in the past about the
>> compatibility of his code with the GPL and he had no desire to change his
>> license or allow distribution.
>>
>>     
>
> That is unfortunate. Clearly, the author of the library explicitly does not
> want his code used in octave.
>   
> Now that we've confirmed than use of the MEX interface with non-free
>   
>> software is legitimate with Octave, a MEX interface can be written. If the
>> MEX interface itself is under an open-source license and GPC itself isn't on
>> octave-forge I don't see why the GPC package can't stay. But again I'd also
>> be happy enough to see it go.
>>
>>     
>
> That's an interesting approach. I really hate it though, because it ends up
> doing exactly the same thing (enabling use of non-free software in octave)
> but now also benefits the Mathworks.
To me it makes sense to have to option of writing non GPLed code for 
Octave for those that have restrictions from their employers that 
constrain them from from releasing certain code to the general public 
and then allows these same employees to work with Octave and contribute 
back to it with other code that the boss doesn't consider in this same 
light. So Octave can win from this situation, but yes I agree that its 
shame that Mathworks also profits from this.

>  Well, if someone want's to do this
> maybe the MEX interface here can help:
>
> http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/8818-polygon-clipper
>
> I have no idea if it works in octave or if the functionality there is
> equivalent.
>   
Please be aware in the change in the ToS of mathcentral a while back, 
matlab attempts to make the following changes

1) Forces a BSD license on the code there, and
2) Makes it impossible to use code downloaded from there with products 
other than matlab.

See the threads (to which you contributed)

http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Mathworks-hosting-GPL-d-software-td1635668.html

and

http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Mathworks-hosted-GPL-d-software-td1638533i40.html

where it is stated that we have no idea if there is a legal basis for 
such a change, but that we shouldn't assume that it does. If you want to 
use this code the contact the author directly rather than downloading it 
from mathcentral.
>  spline-gcvspl :: http://octave.sourceforge.net/spline-gcvspl/index.html
>   
>>>  Well as this software was written in the late eighties when strange
>>>       
>> non-commercial licenses were the norm, the license issue here is normal.
>> Unfortunately, when the author was approached a few years back it turned out
>> that he was dead, and no attempts to contact his next of kin were made.
>>     
>
>
> Also unfortunate. Next of kin are probably irrelevant, though, as it seems
> to have been written while the author was an employee of Philips and
> probably represents work-for-hire.
>   
The copyright is explicitly in the name of H.J. Woltring with an address 
of "Philips medical systemss, Eindhoven", doesn't this make the 
Copyright be in the name of the author rather than Philips?

> Though as the code is copyrighted May 1986 in the Netherlands, a question to
>   
>> ask is how long is copyright in the netherlands? If its 25 years, then this
>> code becomes public in May next year any way.
>>     
>
>
> Maybe confusing copyright and patent durations? In the Netherlands,
> copyright extends 70 years after death (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_copyright_law).
>   

Ok. In any case with good spline code in octave itself there is probably 
no reason to keep this code.

D.

>
> --judd
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sell apps to millions through the Intel(R) Atom(Tm) Developer Program
> Be part of this innovative community and reach millions of netbook users 
> worldwide. Take advantage of special opportunities to increase revenue and 
> speed time-to-market. Join now, and jumpstart your future.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-atom-d2d
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Octave-dev mailing list
> Oct...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
>   


-- 
David Bateman                                dba...@db...
35 rue Gambetta                              +33 1 46 04 02 18 (Home)
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE            +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Judd S. <js...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:56 AM, David Bateman <dba...@db...>wrote:

> To me it makes sense to have to option of writing non GPLed code for Octave
> for those that have restrictions from their employers that constrain them
> from from releasing certain code to the general public and then allows these
> same employees to work with Octave and contribute back to it with other code
> that the boss doesn't consider in this same light. So Octave can win from
> this situation, but yes I agree that its shame that Mathworks also profits
> from this.
>

There are often misconceptions about what the GPL requires. The GPL does not
require that you distribute modifications or that you are even able to
distribute modifications. But, if you *do* distribute modified versions the
modifications must follow the distribution terms of the GPL.

Use *within* a company is not distribution. Even oct-interfaces can be
written for use within a company, but the cannot be distributed to
non-employees. Someone working at a company can develop code that integrates
with anything (assuming the license of the other code allows it), but they
can only distribute code to non-employees/non-contractors under terms of the
GPL. This may imply that the code cannot be distributed. Modifications (bug
fixes etc) that do not require GPL-incompatible software can be contributed
back to octave.

I think it is incorrect to say that use of MEX allows *anything* to be used
with Octave. The purpose of the MEX interface is interoperability with
Matlab. It seems requisite that any distributed MEX software must work in
Matlab and you must have access to a Matlab license to guarantee that. It
is not clear to me that Octave's MEX interface can be used to *develop*
extensions with the intention of using them in octave.

Please be aware in the change in the ToS of mathcentral a while back, matlab
> attempts to make the following changes
>
> 1) Forces a BSD license on the code there, and
>

Well, the GPL can't exactly apply in the case of GPC, can it? In any case,
the 3-clause BSD license used on MatlabCentral is GPL compatible, and the
GPL license cannot apply to code based on GPC.

where it is stated that we have no idea if there is a legal basis for such a
> change, but that we shouldn't assume that it does. If you want to use this
> code the contact the author directly rather than downloading it from
> mathcentral.


Contacting the author was offered as a courtesy (with the purpose of raising
awareness of octave), but is not required by the BSD.


> 2) Makes it impossible to use code downloaded from there with products
> other than matlab.
>

That is not true. The license on the software hosted at MatlabCentral is
three-clause BSD. By distributing their work under this license, the
copyright holder does not restrict its use to users of Matlab. In general,
Mathworks does not own the copyright to contributed software hosted on
MatlabCentral has no authority to change license terms beyond those
specified by the author (the exceptions would be files contributed by
employees). In any case, everything up there is supposed to be 3-clause BSD
licensed (I found a counterexample, where the web interface claimed the BSD
license applied but license inside the files had a non-commercial
restriction. I was not clear if the files had just not been updated to
reflect the license change).

It's unfortunate that the author of the GPC library doesn't want to work
with us, but I'm afraid the die are cast. The issue of whether the
particular files hosted on source-forge violate the GPL has been
resolved--they do and cannot be distributed. Even more troubling is that the
author of GPC advertises the availability of an octave extension on the GPC
main page.

 The copyright is explicitly in the name of H.J. Woltring with an address of
> "Philips medical systemss, Eindhoven", doesn't this make the Copyright be in
> the name of the author rather than Philips?


No, not automatically it doesn't. Copyright automatically goes to the author
at the time of creation, but employment contracts include clauses that
automatically transfer ownership to the employer.

As another example of the author not being the same as the copyright holder,
the FSF has a policy of requiring copyright transfer for all contributions.
Among other things, this allows the FSF to update its licenses without
seeking individual permission from contributors (who may be dead or
unreachable) and it gives the FSF legal standing to pursue violations in
court. Nevertheless, individual files still carry the names of the authors.


--judd

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[David B. <dba...@db...>]

Judd,

I prepared a  long answer to you, addressing each of your point 
individually, but decided not to send it. Frankly yes I understand the 
subtleties of the GPL, BSD license and the mathcentral ToS and I stand 
by my original mail

D.

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Judd S. <js...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:41 PM, David Bateman <dba...@db...>wrote:

> I prepared a  long answer to you, addressing each of your point
> individually, but decided not to send it. Frankly yes I understand the
> subtleties of the GPL, BSD license and the mathcentral ToS and I stand by my
> original mail
>

Honestly, the issue of MathCentral, BSD, and the use of MEX is off topic and
I should have ignored it.

What is important is that octave-forge is distributing files in
contravention of octave's license and this needs to be resolved somehow.


--judd

[OctDev] Use of MATLAB Central (was Re: GPL violations)

[Joe V. Jr. <joe...@gm...>]

 License discussions seem to generate a lot of bandwidth!  I believe Judd is correct that this is off-topic, so I will try to fork the discussion by changing the subject line.

I spoke today with a representative from The MathWorks who works with MATLAB Central and the File Exchange.  The short version is that any code downloaded from MATLAB Central is covered by the BSD license and nothing more.  The use of BSD licensing is a recent change, so the Terms of Use are outdated and will be reviewed by the legal team, with the intent of modifying the line restricting use to MathWorks products.  For the sake of documentation, I have included the e-mail conversation below, with the rep's name removed.

The rep clarified explained in a follow-up phone call that MathWorks wants to encourage openness and broad use of MATLAB Central, they just don't want to become a repository for Octave and R code.  That was the original intent of that line in the Terms of Use.  I asked about dual-use code that ran on MATLAB and another platform, and the rep said it would be welcome and even recommended mentioning in the upload description that the code can run on Octave or R as well.  The rep also confirmed that the Terms of Use apply only to the use of the website, not the code downloaded from it.

I thought this was an interesting discussion thread.  I felt the only uncertain area was whether the Terms of Use could be construed as modifying the license.  I didn't think that could be the case, but I asked.  (Sometimes, asking is simpler than debating.)  Mostly, I thought the ToU were in conflict with the license and needed to be modified, and I'm glad to see they will at least take steps in that direction.

So, in summary, yes, code downloaded from MATLAB Central and the File Exchange marked as being BSD licensed is definitely only under the BSD license, with no further restrictions.  Hope this helps.

Joe V.


-------- Quoted messages follow --------

From: Joe Vornehm Jr.
To: fi...@ma...
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:48:49 -0400
Subject: MATLAB File Exchange licensing/Terms of Use question

I have a question about making submissions to the MATLAB Central File Exchange.

You very clearly require a BSD license for all submissions.  You state on each submission's download page that the code is covered by the BSD license, you link to the file's license from that page, and you include the BSD license as license.txt in each downloaded zip file.  I'm OK with that.

But then I saw this line in the MATLAB Central Terms of Use (http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/disclaimer.html): "All content contained in the MATLAB Central File Exchange may only be used with MathWorks products."  I'm confused.  Is that supposed to be part of the code's license?  As an author, I don't want to restrict people's use of my code that way.  How is this term enforced?  Are people refused access to the website if they want to use my code with some other product?  I feel like this term is unnecessary and is in conflict with the license that very clearly is applied to each submission.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Joe Vornehm



From: XXX
To: Joe Vornehm Jr.
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:10:46 -0400
Subject: RE: MATLAB File Exchange licensing/Terms of Use question

Hi Joe - 

I received your question about using files from File Exchange.  There is nothing in our download mechanism that will impact your download.

The BSD license is attached to the file submission, so license that will apply to your reuse of that code.

I hope that helps!  Thanks for being part of our MATLAB Central Community.

XXX
MATLAB Central Community



From: Joe Vornehm Jr.
To: XXX
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:17:00 -0400
Subject: Re: MATLAB File Exchange licensing/Terms of Use question

Hi XXX, thanks for writing back.

So, just to be clear, if I submit code with a BSD license and then people download it, their use of the code is not subject to any further restrictions beyond the BSD license requirements, correct?

If that's the case, why is that extra present in the Terms of Use?

Joe V.



From: XXX
To: Joe Vornehm Jr.
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:40:21 -0400
Subject: RE: MATLAB File Exchange licensing/Terms of Use question

The BSD is fairly new, so that went through Legal review in the past year.  The disclaimer is older text, and I will take an action item to talk to our Legal team to see if we can lighten up that wording.

Do you want me to call you to chat about this?

XXX


-------- End quoted messages --------

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Søren H. <so...@ha...>]

tor, 26 08 2010 kl. 22:50 +0200, skrev David Bateman:
> Judd Storrs wrote:
> > Sorry to be the hatchet man, but... I'll tear the band-aid quickly:
> >
> > The following packages violate the licensing terms of the various octave
> > releases (GPLv2,3) and cannot be distributed even as source code.
> >
> > GPC :: http://octave.sourceforge.net/gpc/index.html
> >   
> The author of this package has been approached in the past about the 
> compatibility of his code with the GPL and he had no desire to change 
> his license or allow distribution.. I'd be happy to see this package go, 
> but maybe you should talk with Rafael Laboissiere first.

Rafael is an important part of the community, so I definitely want his
input before making any decisions.

Søren

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Jaroslav H. <hi...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Judd Storrs <js...@gm...> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:56 AM, David Bateman <dba...@db...>
> wrote:
>>
>> To me it makes sense to have to option of writing non GPLed code for
>> Octave for those that have restrictions from their employers that constrain
>> them from from releasing certain code to the general public and then allows
>> these same employees to work with Octave and contribute back to it with
>> other code that the boss doesn't consider in this same light. So Octave can
>> win from this situation, but yes I agree that its shame that Mathworks also
>> profits from this.
>
> There are often misconceptions about what the GPL requires. The GPL does not
> require that you distribute modifications or that you are even able to
> distribute modifications. But, if you *do* distribute modified versions the
> modifications must follow the distribution terms of the GPL.
> Use *within* a company is not distribution. Even oct-interfaces can be
> written for use within a company, but the cannot be distributed to
> non-employees. Someone working at a company can develop code that integrates
> with anything (assuming the license of the other code allows it), but they
> can only distribute code to non-employees/non-contractors under terms of the
> GPL. This may imply that the code cannot be distributed. Modifications (bug
> fixes etc) that do not require GPL-incompatible software can be contributed
> back to octave.
> I think it is incorrect to say that use of MEX allows *anything* to be used
> with Octave. The purpose of the MEX interface is interoperability with
> Matlab. It seems requisite that any distributed MEX software must work in
> Matlab and you must have access to a Matlab license to guarantee that. It
> is not clear to me that Octave's MEX interface can be used to *develop*
> extensions with the intention of using them in octave.
>>
>> Please be aware in the change in the ToS of mathcentral a while back,
>> matlab attempts to make the following changes
>>
>> 1) Forces a BSD license on the code there, and
>
> Well, the GPL can't exactly apply in the case of GPC, can it? In any case,
> the 3-clause BSD license used on MatlabCentral is GPL compatible, and the
> GPL license cannot apply to code based on GPC.
>>
>> where it is stated that we have no idea if there is a legal basis for such
>> a change, but that we shouldn't assume that it does. If you want to use this
>> code the contact the author directly rather than downloading it from
>> mathcentral.
>
> Contacting the author was offered as a courtesy (with the purpose of raising
> awareness of octave), but is not required by the BSD.
>
>>
>> 2) Makes it impossible to use code downloaded from there with products
>> other than matlab.
>
> That is not true.

Perhaps not, but it is what they say - see Terms of Use of Matlab
Central. I think the risk is too great for a typical hacker/user to
ignore, in spite of yours or anyone else's legal opinion about this.
I'd say that software from Matlab File Exchange is at best unadvisable
to use with Octave.

best regards

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Judd S. <js...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jaroslav Hajek <hi...@gm...> wrote:

> Perhaps not, but it is what they say - see Terms of Use of Matlab
> Central. I think the risk is too great for a typical hacker/user to
> ignore, in spite of yours or anyone else's legal opinion about this.
> I'd say that software from Matlab File Exchange is at best unadvisable
> to use with Octave.
>

I'm sorry I have to remind you that the website's Terms of Service only
apply to actual use of the website (i.e. comments, accounts etc) and is not
part of the licensing terms that contributors have selected to distribute
their code. Just ask someone else to download the file and send it to you if
you think voodoo applies.


--judd

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Jaroslav H. <hi...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Judd Storrs <js...@gm...> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jaroslav Hajek <hi...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps not, but it is what they say - see Terms of Use of Matlab
>> Central. I think the risk is too great for a typical hacker/user to
>> ignore, in spite of yours or anyone else's legal opinion about this.
>> I'd say that software from Matlab File Exchange is at best unadvisable
>> to use with Octave.
>
> I'm sorry I have to remind you that the website's Terms of Service only
> apply to actual use of the website (i.e. comments, accounts etc) and is not
> part of the licensing terms that contributors have selected to distribute
> their code.

I'm sorry I have to remind you that the ToS talks of "all content
contained". I know your opinion about this and you know I don't agree,
but regardless of who is right, I think it is wiser to avoid the risk
however small it may be.

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Martin H. <ma...@mh...>]

Am Freitag, 27. August 2010, 21:06:44 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Judd Storrs <js...@gm...> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jaroslav Hajek <hi...@gm...> wrote:
> >> Perhaps not, but it is what they say - see Terms of Use of Matlab
> >> Central. I think the risk is too great for a typical hacker/user to
> >> ignore, in spite of yours or anyone else's legal opinion about this.
> >> I'd say that software from Matlab File Exchange is at best unadvisable
> >> to use with Octave.
> > 
> > I'm sorry I have to remind you that the website's Terms of Service only
> > apply to actual use of the website (i.e. comments, accounts etc) and is
> > not part of the licensing terms that contributors have selected to
> > distribute their code.
> 
> I'm sorry I have to remind you that the ToS talks of "all content
> contained". I know your opinion about this and you know I don't agree,
> but regardless of who is right, I think it is wiser to avoid the risk
> however small it may be.

Wouldn't that logic mean that the validity of a BSD or GPL license depends on 
the fact from where the source code is downloaded?
Then nobody can ever use any GPL or BSD licensed code, since it nether can be 
asured that such a code is not at any time in the past downloaded from a place 
where an additional ToS is placed in addition to the original license.
Either a code is licensed as BSD (in that case) or it is not. If it is BSD it 
is BSD. 
If that does not hold, all kind of free licenses around out there on the net 
are worthless.

- Martin

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[David B. <dba...@db...>]

Martin Helm wrote:
> Wouldn't that logic mean that the validity of a BSD or GPL license depends on 
> the fact from where the source code is downloaded?
> Then nobody can ever use any GPL or BSD licensed code, since it nether can be 
> asured that such a code is not at any time in the past downloaded from a place 
> where an additional ToS is placed in addition to the original license.
> Either a code is licensed as BSD (in that case) or it is not. If it is BSD it 
> is BSD. 
> If that does not hold, all kind of free licenses around out there on the net 
> are worthless.
>
> - Martin
>
>   
Yes limiting the BSD via the ToS is what is really disgusting on the 
part of mathworks probably has no legal basis. But if we as Octave 
developers give legitimacy to mathworks claim then they might be used in 
court for any violation of their ToS that put code directly downloaded 
from mathcentral into Octave.

D.

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Jaroslav H. <hi...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Martin Helm <ma...@mh...> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 27. August 2010, 21:06:44 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Judd Storrs <js...@gm...> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jaroslav Hajek <hi...@gm...> wrote:
>> >> Perhaps not, but it is what they say - see Terms of Use of Matlab
>> >> Central. I think the risk is too great for a typical hacker/user to
>> >> ignore, in spite of yours or anyone else's legal opinion about this.
>> >> I'd say that software from Matlab File Exchange is at best unadvisable
>> >> to use with Octave.
>> >
>> > I'm sorry I have to remind you that the website's Terms of Service only
>> > apply to actual use of the website (i.e. comments, accounts etc) and is
>> > not part of the licensing terms that contributors have selected to
>> > distribute their code.
>>
>> I'm sorry I have to remind you that the ToS talks of "all content
>> contained". I know your opinion about this and you know I don't agree,
>> but regardless of who is right, I think it is wiser to avoid the risk
>> however small it may be.
>
> Wouldn't that logic mean that the validity of a BSD or GPL license depends on
> the fact from where the source code is downloaded?

The BSD allows adding restrictions; GPL does not. So much the facts.
If you wish, search the previous discussion on this topic. Basically,
there were two fundamental questions:

1. Whether it is legal to add restrictions to BSD code when it's
redistributed without modifications.
2. Whether it is legal to add such restrictions through an external
ToS agreement.

Pick your own answers, I made a promise to avoid further speculations.
I'm just stating the facts.

hth

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Martin H. <ma...@mh...>]

Am Freitag, 27. August 2010, 21:39:49 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
> The BSD allows adding restrictions; GPL does not. So much the facts.
I know that. My comment was the following hope more clearly (and this is not 
restricted to the discussion about this special website at MC):

How do you or I or anyone else by looking at a code which contains a license 
(be it BSD or GPL or whatever else) know if one is allowed to use it according 
to that license which is mentioned in the code if you cannot trace all the 
places where it was ever uploaded and then downloaded and uploaded and 
distributed again and knowing for every such site the ToS to judge that on 
this unknown way the code took there was a place where the ToS was violated, 
when it is not mentioned in the license?
You do not know that from looking at the source codes license, I do not know 
that and nobody else.
Following the logic that such thing is possible means: Stop using any free 
software license immediately you never can know if you do not violate a ToS 
which is not mentioned in the license.

> If you wish, search the previous discussion on this topic. Basically,
> there were two fundamental questions:
> 
> 1. Whether it is legal to add restrictions to BSD code when it's
> redistributed without modifications.
> 2. Whether it is legal to add such restrictions through an external
> ToS agreement.
> 
I allready read this discussions as I follow them for a long time now (and 
also several years on different places). Either there exist free open source 
licenses and they are valid or they are worthless.

- Martin

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Jaroslav H. <hi...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Martin Helm <ma...@mh...> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 27. August 2010, 21:39:49 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
>> The BSD allows adding restrictions; GPL does not. So much the facts.
> I know that. My comment was the following hope more clearly (and this is not
> restricted to the discussion about this special website at MC):
>
> How do you or I or anyone else by looking at a code which contains a license
> (be it BSD or GPL or whatever else) know if one is allowed to use it according
> to that license which is mentioned in the code if you cannot trace all the
> places where it was ever uploaded and then downloaded and uploaded and
> distributed again and knowing for every such site the ToS to judge that on
> this unknown way the code took there was a place where the ToS was violated,
> when it is not mentioned in the license?
> You do not know that from looking at the source codes license, I do not know
> that and nobody else.

No, you don't. Neither you know whether someone replaced or modified
the license in the sources.

> Following the logic that such thing is possible means: Stop using any free
> software license immediately you never can know if you do not violate a ToS
> which is not mentioned in the license.

No, thank you, I won't, I'll just trust my instincts. But you knew that ;)

>
>> If you wish, search the previous discussion on this topic. Basically,
>> there were two fundamental questions:
>>
>> 1. Whether it is legal to add restrictions to BSD code when it's
>> redistributed without modifications.
>> 2. Whether it is legal to add such restrictions through an external
>> ToS agreement.
>>
> I allready read this discussions as I follow them for a long time now (and
> also several years on different places). Either there exist free open source
> licenses and they are valid or they are worthless.
>

Such licenses exist, that's a fact.

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Martin H. <ma...@mh...>]

Am Freitag, 27. August 2010, 22:15:24 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Martin Helm <ma...@mh...> wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 27. August 2010, 21:39:49 schrieb Jaroslav Hajek:
> >> The BSD allows adding restrictions; GPL does not. So much the facts.
> > 
> > I know that. My comment was the following hope more clearly (and this is
> > not restricted to the discussion about this special website at MC):
> > 
> > How do you or I or anyone else by looking at a code which contains a
> > license (be it BSD or GPL or whatever else) know if one is allowed to
> > use it according to that license which is mentioned in the code if you
> > cannot trace all the places where it was ever uploaded and then
> > downloaded and uploaded and distributed again and knowing for every such
> > site the ToS to judge that on this unknown way the code took there was a
> > place where the ToS was violated, when it is not mentioned in the
> > license?
> > You do not know that from looking at the source codes license, I do not
> > know that and nobody else.
> 
> No, you don't. Neither you know whether someone replaced or modified
> the license in the sources.
> 
> > Following the logic that such thing is possible means: Stop using any
> > free software license immediately you never can know if you do not
> > violate a ToS which is not mentioned in the license.
> 
> No, thank you, I won't, I'll just trust my instincts. But you knew that ;)
> 
> >> If you wish, search the previous discussion on this topic. Basically,
> >> there were two fundamental questions:
> >> 
> >> 1. Whether it is legal to add restrictions to BSD code when it's
> >> redistributed without modifications.
> >> 2. Whether it is legal to add such restrictions through an external
> >> ToS agreement.
> > 
> > I allready read this discussions as I follow them for a long time now
> > (and also several years on different places). Either there exist free
> > open source licenses and they are valid or they are worthless.
> 
> Such licenses exist, that's a fact.

Of course they exist and of course I make use of them (since 1990) and luckily 
many other people, no question.
I just wanted to provoke a bit the question what it really means to put 
additional restrictions (in that case by mathworks) onto a license without 
including that restrictions in the license itself and what such a thing really 
means to a user sitting in front of such a license and the code without 
knowing exactly the way it took before  (this restrictions would - if included 
- of course be valid for the case of a BSD and I think also for a MIT license 
and maybe that is anyway the next step they take - just some wild speculation 
from my side).

I also would not include such a piece of code into a FOSS like Gnu Octave (or 
some other FOSS) and I do not really want to be misinterpreted that I would 
advocate such an inclusion (all what I say is anyway only a personal and 
private point of view from an octave user, since I am not in any form  part of 
such a decision process) even if I would give a arm and a leg to ensure that 
it is legal (but I am not a lawyer).

It is anyway the best thing to ask the original author to contribute to octave 
if s/he is interested.

Btw sorry that this discussion was now somewhat off topic.

- Martin

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Judd S. <js...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Jaroslav Hajek <hi...@gm...> wrote:

> No, you don't. Neither you know whether someone replaced or modified
> the license in the sources.
>

Only the copyright holder can pursue infringement claims or modify
licensing. The BSD license does not transfer ownership neither does it grant
the right to modify the license. If you think otherwise, please cite the
text of the BSD license that grants these rights. In the current incarnation
of MathCentral, the MathWorks does not own files contributed by users and
has no power to modify their licensing.


--judd

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Martin H. <ma...@mh...>]

Am Freitag, 27. August 2010, 22:55:22 schrieb Judd Storrs:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Jaroslav Hajek <hi...@gm...> wrote:
> > No, you don't. Neither you know whether someone replaced or modified
> > the license in the sources.
> 
> Only the copyright holder can pursue infringement claims or modify
> licensing. The BSD license does not transfer ownership neither does it
> grant the right to modify the license. If you think otherwise, please cite
> the text of the BSD license that grants these rights. In the current
> incarnation of MathCentral, the MathWorks does not own files contributed
> by users and has no power to modify their licensing.
> 
> 
> --judd

The intersting thing about the BSD license is that it does not forbid 
modifications in form of adding restrictions in the license it only states 
(besides the other unrelated conditions )

 * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

It does not state "and nothing else" which makes it possible to add 
restrictions, it contains no copyleft.

- Martin

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Judd S. <js...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Martin Helm <ma...@mh...> wrote:
>
> It does not state "and nothing else" which makes it possible to add
> restrictions, it contains no copyleft.
>

As a practical matter, merely modifying the license does not create of a
derivative work. Someone that only modified the license terms (and nothing
else) would have no authorship rights to protect. They would lack standing
in court to pursue copyright infringement. It's permitted, but futile.


--judd

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Jaroslav H. <hi...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Judd Storrs <js...@gm...> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Jaroslav Hajek <hi...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> No, you don't. Neither you know whether someone replaced or modified
>> the license in the sources.
>
> Only the copyright holder can pursue infringement claims or modify
> licensing.

No. If the license allows it, you can redistribute the source under a
modified license. For instance, you can take a BSD code and
incorporate it into Octave. The result is distributed under GPL. The
incorporated source may (and often does) carry the BSD header, but
effectively it *is* covered by GPL. If you take that source from
Octave, it is still covered by GPL; you can't "downgrade" it back to
BSD. If you take a copy of the same source code from elsewhere (i.e.
not "filtered" through a GPL'ed project), it's under BSD.

> The BSD license does not transfer ownership neither does it grant
> the right to modify the license. If you think otherwise, please cite the
> text of the BSD license that grants these rights.

"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:"

The only modification may well be adding a license restriction. If you
think otherwise, please cite the text of the BSD license that forbids
this :) Of course this *doesn't* apply back to the copy that the
original author has on his disk. It *does* matter where did you get
your copy from, even if it may be difficult to prove.

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz

Re: [OctDev] GPL violations

[Judd S. <js...@gm...>]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Jaroslav Hajek <hi...@gm...> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Judd Storrs <js...@gm...> wrote:
> > Only the copyright holder can pursue infringement claims or modify
> > licensing.
>
> No.


I don't care what you think you know about the BSD license.

What's your opinion on whether octave-forge can distribute oct-file bindings
to GPL incompatible libraries? How do we resolve this?


--judd

Re: [OctDev] Use of MATLAB Central (was Re: GPL violations)

[David B. <dba...@db...>]

Joe Vornehm Jr. wrote:
>  License discussions seem to generate a lot of bandwidth!  I believe Judd is correct that this is off-topic, so I will try to fork the discussion by changing the subject line.
>
> I spoke today with a representative from The MathWorks who works with MATLAB Central and the File Exchange.  The short version is that any code downloaded from MATLAB Central is covered by the BSD license and nothing more.  The use of BSD licensing is a recent change, so the Terms of Use are outdated and will be reviewed by the legal team, with the intent of modifying the line restricting use to MathWorks products.  For the sake of documentation, I have included the e-mail conversation below, with the rep's name removed.
>
> The rep clarified explained in a follow-up phone call that MathWorks wants to encourage openness and broad use of MATLAB Central, they just don't want to become a repository for Octave and R code.  That was the original intent of that line in the Terms of Use.  I asked about dual-use code that ran on MATLAB and another platform, and the rep said it would be welcome and even recommended mentioning in the upload description that the code can run on Octave or R as well.  The rep also confirmed that the Terms of Use apply only to the use of the website, not the code downloaded from it.
>
> I thought this was an interesting discussion thread.  I felt the only uncertain area was whether the Terms of Use could be construed as modifying the license.  I didn't think that could be the case, but I asked.  (Sometimes, asking is simpler than debating.)  Mostly, I thought the ToU were in conflict with the license and needed to be modified, and I'm glad to see they will at least take steps in that direction.
>
> So, in summary, yes, code downloaded from MATLAB Central and the File Exchange marked as being BSD licensed is definitely only under the BSD license, with no further restrictions.  Hope this helps.
>
> Joe V.
>   

Well till they make the change in the ToU I believe the question is 
still in doubt from a legal point of view. However, if I'm ever sued, 
I'll contact you for the version of the mail with MathWorks tech support 
with the names to defend myself ;-)

Cheers
David

Re: [OctDev] Use of MATLAB Central (was Re: GPL violations)

[Judd S. <js...@gm...>]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:17 PM, David Bateman <dba...@db...>wrote:

> Well till they make the change in the ToU I believe the question is
> still in doubt from a legal point of view. However, if I'm ever sued,
> I'll contact you for the version of the mail with MathWorks tech support
> with the names to defend myself ;-)
>

In this hypothetical situation who would be suing you? Does this
person/entity you fear hold the copyrights to the files? If not, why would a
court listen to their claims?


--judd