Menu
▾
▴
opencxx-users
|
From: Stefan S. <sse...@ar...> - 2004-09-21 15:06:49
|
Hi Grzegorz, > From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...] > Sent: September 21, 2004 10:43 > You used OpenC++ code for the benefit of your project, > however now you > are effectively blocking OpenC++ from using its own > derivatives present > in your project's code. > > You certainly realize that OpenC++ cannot change its license > overnight, > especially that it involves negotations with Xerox Co. If you were > really thinking about sharing code between OpenC++ and Synopsis both > ways, and at the same time were indeed concerned about > OpenC++ license, > you could have raised the issue several months ago, when you were > talking to Chiba about distributing his changes under LGPL. For some > reason you decided to keep this issue off the mailing list. Wait a minute. The 'OpenC++ code' we are talking about here has two copyright holders, Chiba and Xerox. Chiba agreed to relicense under LGPL, and the Xerox code is being phased out right now. Please don't construct some conspiracy around this. It is very unfortunate that you believe the LGPL conditions make the code unusable for you, but that's something you have to live with. It's you who doesn't want to give the freedoms that are tied into LGPL to others. This finger pointing isn't very constructive, so I'd suggest we either stop this aspect of the discussion, or at least take it offline. I asked last week whether anybody had issues with the LGPL, and you were the only one who voiced his disagreement. > I understand that you have the legal right not to relicense > your changes > under OpenC++ license and thus block their incorporation back into > OpenC++. However in my opinion this is unfair, counterproductive and > certainly not in the spirit of open source community. And, > above all, it > can be hardly called a "cooperation" between the projects. It is highly demagogical and polemic to accuse LGPL for being counter-productive and 'not in the spirit of open source'. Fortunately a lot of developers don't agree with you on this. Regards, Stefan |
|
From: SF M. E. <el...@us...> - 2004-09-21 16:16:47
|
> Wait a minute. The 'OpenC++ code' we are talking about here has > two copyright holders, Chiba and Xerox. Chiba agreed to relicense > under LGPL, and the Xerox code is being phased out right now. Was this agreement published anywhere? Are other license variants acceptable? http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ Regards, Markus |
|
From: Stefan S. <sse...@ar...> - 2004-09-21 17:11:59
|
> From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...]
> Sent: September 21, 2004 12:34
> Whether OpenC++ will be distributed under LGPL depends on the
> outcome of
> the discussion which will take place in this forum.
excellent.
> For the records: I have never voted for or against LGPL; this is only
> your asumption that "LGPL conditions make the code unusable for" me.
Sorry if I got things backwards, but you said in another mail that you
would not have been able to use OpenC++ in your job would it be distributed
under LGPL.
> Moreover, I have not opposed changing OpenC++ license if there is a
> consensus about it.
Good.
> You seem to ignore the fact that changing OpenC++ license
> CANNOT HAPPEN
> OVERNIGHT and requires negotiations with Xerox Co. You also
> ignore the
> fact that last week I wrote that I am about to start the process of
> standardizing OpenC++ license in the end of this week.
I'm quite aware of it, and I'm glad you started this discussion (let's
hope it will stay on-topic and lead to a conclusion).
I know that such a process takes some time. I'v never asked you or anybody
else to change the license of the code that's currently in your repository,
and I'v especially not asked to make it 'happen overnight'.
> Also step back and look at this situation: OpenC++ has a specific
> non-standard license which is in place for many years (you
> contributed
> under it yourself). However now you confront the OpenC++
> community with
> ultimatum "you have to switch to LGPL or you wouldn't get
> patches from
> Synopsis".
How's this an ultimatum ?
> Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly
> supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has
> not taken place.
I'v always developed under LGPL. I'v also no problems incorporating
minor patches into OpenC++ under any free license OpenC++ uses itself.
However, if we are now talking about using Synopsis' own OpenC++ branch
as the foundation of 'OpenC++ Core', this is a qualitative change. I
find it quite natural that this discussion takes place now, and I
don't understand why you are accusing me of 'confronting' anybody
with an 'ultimatum'.
> Would you agree to contribute your patches under OpenC++ license if
> OpenC++ has a standard OSI-approved or Boost license?
I'v already answered this question. Let's see how the discussion goes.
I'd very much appreciate if we found a solution that makes it possible
for me to keep my code under LGPL.
Regards,
Stefan
PS: as far as 'collaboration' is concerned, it is my sincere hope that
even if diverging opinions concerning license issues will not let
us share code, we are still able to share ideas.
|
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...> - 2004-09-22 04:43:49
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Stefan Seefeld wrote: [...] > > Also step back and look at this situation: OpenC++ has a specific > > non-standard license which is in place for many years (you > > contributed > > under it yourself). However now you confront the OpenC++ > > community with > > ultimatum "you have to switch to LGPL or you wouldn't get > > patches from > > Synopsis". > > How's this an ultimatum ? Your modifications to OpenC++ are under LGPL and you do not agree to contribute them back to OpenC++ under current OpenC++ license. This is effectively an ultimatum saying that if we want to use your patches we need to switch to *your* license. > > Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly > > supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has > > not taken place. > > I'v always developed under LGPL. How does it apply? > I'v also no problems incorporating > minor patches into OpenC++ under any free license OpenC++ uses itself. > > However, if we are now talking about using Synopsis' own OpenC++ branch > as the foundation of 'OpenC++ Core', this is a qualitative change. I > find it quite natural that this discussion takes place now, and I > don't understand why you are accusing me of 'confronting' anybody > with an 'ultimatum'. Because you are expecting OpenC++ to bend to your model or else we cannot use your patches. This is hardly a collaborative approach. > > Would you agree to contribute your patches under OpenC++ license if > > OpenC++ has a standard OSI-approved or Boost license? > > I'v already answered this question. Let's see how the discussion goes. > I'd very much appreciate if we found a solution that makes it possible > for me to keep my code under LGPL. What is your point in all this? Why don't you keep Synopsis under whatever license you want, but donate OpenC++ patches back to OpenC++ under its license? That would be fair to give back to this project as you leverage it in yours. BR Grzegorz ################################################################## # Grzegorz Jakacki Huada Electronic Design # # Senior Engineer, CAD Dept. 1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang # # tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074 Beijing 100015, China # # Copyright (C) 2004 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. # ################################################################## |
|
From: Stefan S. <se...@sy...> - 2004-09-22 05:06:08
|
Grzegorz Jakacki wrote: > Your modifications to OpenC++ are under LGPL and you do not agree to > contribute them back to OpenC++ under current OpenC++ license. This is > effectively an ultimatum saying that if we want to use your patches we > need to switch to *your* license. I believe you get it all backwards: it's the LGPL that ensures the continual freedom to use, modify, and distribute any changes. Your license essentially states it doesn't care who's doing what with the code. I find it surprising that you now care so much. I invite you to join in and use the LGPL, as I believe that it will be a better device for you to make sure all changes are 'given back'. ;-) >>>Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly >>>supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has >>>not taken place. >> >>I'v always developed under LGPL. > > > How does it apply? I'v integrated OpenC++ code into Synopsis about four to five years ago, and have ever since made modifications under LGPL. I simply intend to continue doing this. Nothing changes, as far as I'm concerned. So the 'honest discussion of licensing' you are talking about has to happen in your camp, not mine, if you want to use the code I develop. I encourage you to use my code, as long as you keep it freely available and modifiable, no matter how you distribute it. How's this unfair ? >>I'v also no problems incorporating >>minor patches into OpenC++ under any free license OpenC++ uses itself. >> >>However, if we are now talking about using Synopsis' own OpenC++ branch >>as the foundation of 'OpenC++ Core', this is a qualitative change. I >>find it quite natural that this discussion takes place now, and I >>don't understand why you are accusing me of 'confronting' anybody >>with an 'ultimatum'. > > > Because you are expecting OpenC++ to bend to your model or else we cannot > use your patches. This is hardly a collaborative approach. I don't expect anything. I develop Synopsis, and I'd be more than happy to see people use and enhance it. If you believe my use of OpenCxx code is not correct, I encourage you to change *your* license to express in what way you'd want to restrict how people like me may use it. I believe this discussion has taken up enough bandwidth. Let's get on with our work. Let's get back to technical issues. Regards, Stefan |
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...> - 2004-09-22 05:37:32
|
Stefan, What you are doing is not a collaboration. If you want to keep your patches away from OpenC++, do it, you have a legal right to do so. > I believe this discussion has taken up enough bandwidth. Let's > get on with our work. Let's get back to technical issues. Before I reengage in thechnical discussion I would like to see how resources I am going to invest in it will benefit OpenC++ project. Best regards Grzegorz On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Stefan Seefeld wrote: > Grzegorz Jakacki wrote: > > > Your modifications to OpenC++ are under LGPL and you do not agree to > > contribute them back to OpenC++ under current OpenC++ license. This is > > effectively an ultimatum saying that if we want to use your patches we > > need to switch to *your* license. > > I believe you get it all backwards: it's the LGPL that ensures the continual > freedom to use, modify, and distribute any changes. Your license essentially > states it doesn't care who's doing what with the code. > I find it surprising that you now care so much. I invite you to join in and > use the LGPL, as I believe that it will be a better device for you to make sure > all changes are 'given back'. ;-) > > > >>>Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly > >>>supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has > >>>not taken place. > >> > >>I'v always developed under LGPL. > > > > > > How does it apply? > > I'v integrated OpenC++ code into Synopsis about four to five years ago, > and have ever since made modifications under LGPL. I simply intend to > continue doing this. Nothing changes, as far as I'm concerned. > > So the 'honest discussion of licensing' you are talking about has to happen > in your camp, not mine, if you want to use the code I develop. > I encourage you to use my code, as long as you keep it freely available > and modifiable, no matter how you distribute it. How's this unfair ? > > >>I'v also no problems incorporating > >>minor patches into OpenC++ under any free license OpenC++ uses itself. > >> > >>However, if we are now talking about using Synopsis' own OpenC++ branch > >>as the foundation of 'OpenC++ Core', this is a qualitative change. I > >>find it quite natural that this discussion takes place now, and I > >>don't understand why you are accusing me of 'confronting' anybody > >>with an 'ultimatum'. > > > > > > Because you are expecting OpenC++ to bend to your model or else we cannot > > use your patches. This is hardly a collaborative approach. > > I don't expect anything. I develop Synopsis, and I'd be more than > happy to see people use and enhance it. If you believe my use of > OpenCxx code is not correct, I encourage you to change *your* license to > express in what way you'd want to restrict how people like me may use it. > > I believe this discussion has taken up enough bandwidth. Let's > get on with our work. Let's get back to technical issues. > > Regards, > Stefan > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 > Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on > who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. > Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php > _______________________________________________ > Opencxx-users mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opencxx-users > > ################################################################## # Grzegorz Jakacki Huada Electronic Design # # Senior Engineer, CAD Dept. 1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang # # tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074 Beijing 100015, China # # Copyright (C) 2004 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. # ################################################################## |
|
From: SF M. E. <el...@us...> - 2004-09-23 15:15:02
|
Hello, > What you are doing is not a collaboration. If you want to keep your > patches away from OpenC++, do it, you have a legal right to do so. Which properties or aspects of the LGPL deny or restrict to integrate code enhancements from Synopsis into OpenC++? Regards, Markus |
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...> - 2004-09-26 10:26:09
|
SF Markus Elfring wrote: [...] > > Which properties or aspects of the LGPL deny or restrict to integrate code enhancements > from Synopsis into OpenC++? Merging code enhancements means creating derivative work of code covered by LGPL. Such work can only be distributed under LGPL (or GPL). This means that you have to fulfill certain obligations if you want to distribute a program that uses the library (see LGPL item 6) BR Grzegorz |
|
From: Stefan S. <se...@sy...> - 2004-09-26 16:00:39
|
Grzegorz Jakacki wrote: > Merging code enhancements means creating derivative work of code covered > by LGPL. Such work can only be distributed under LGPL (or GPL). This sorry, but that's entirely false, both, for GPL as well as LGPL. > means that you have to fulfill certain obligations if you want to > distribute a program that uses the library (see LGPL item 6) this isn't the same as what you said above. Nothing forces you to change your license just because you link to LGPL code. It is true however that for the part of the code that is covered by LGPL you have to follow some rules (such as the ones you refer to). Also note that we are *not* talking about GPL here. Regards, Stefan |
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...> - 2004-09-27 08:29:26
|
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:
>
> > Merging code enhancements means creating derivative work of code covered
> > by LGPL. Such work can only be distributed under LGPL (or GPL). This
>
> sorry, but that's entirely false, both, for GPL as well as LGPL.
Are you implying that I can create a derived work of LGPL code and
distribute it under license different from GPL and LGPL, e.g. existing
OpenC++ license?
> > means that you have to fulfill certain obligations if you want to
> > distribute a program that uses the library (see LGPL item 6)
>
> this isn't the same as what you said above. Nothing forces you to change
> your license just because you link to LGPL code.
I don't understand what you are challenging. Clients have to fulfill certain
obligations if they link against LGPL-ed library:
Section 5:
(...) linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an
executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains
portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".
The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms
for distribution of such executables. (...)
Section 6:
As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a
"work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing
portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your
choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the
customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
modifications.
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library
is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this
License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during
execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright
notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the
user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in
the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above);
and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the
complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object
code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and
then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified
Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of
definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to
recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library.
A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate
properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs
one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the
version that the work was made with.
c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection
6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this
distribution.
d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a
designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified
materials from the same place.
e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials
or that you have already sent this user a copy.
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library"
must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the
executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be
distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
that component itself accompanies the executable.
It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions
of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the
operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and
the Library together in an executable that you distribute.
> It is true however that
> for the part of the code that is covered by LGPL you have to follow some
> rules (such as the ones you refer to).
Consequently, if I include part of your LGPL-ed code into OpenC++ I cannot
distribute the merged code under existing OpenC++ license.
> Also note that we are *not* talking about GPL here.
Of course. I mentioned GPL, because LGPL allows redistribution of the
library under LGPL *or* GPL (at redistributor's will). The statement "Such
work can only be distributed under LGPL" would be incorrect, thus I had to
mention GPL.
BR
Grzegorz
##################################################################
# Grzegorz Jakacki Huada Electronic Design #
# Senior Engineer, CAD Dept. 1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang #
# tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074 Beijing 100015, China #
# Copyright (C) 2004 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. #
##################################################################
|
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...> - 2004-09-21 16:39:35
|
Stefan Seefeld wrote: > Hi Grzegorz, > > >>From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...] >>Sent: September 21, 2004 10:43 > > >>You used OpenC++ code for the benefit of your project, >>however now you >>are effectively blocking OpenC++ from using its own >>derivatives present >>in your project's code. >> >>You certainly realize that OpenC++ cannot change its license >>overnight, >>especially that it involves negotations with Xerox Co. If you were >>really thinking about sharing code between OpenC++ and Synopsis both >>ways, and at the same time were indeed concerned about >>OpenC++ license, >>you could have raised the issue several months ago, when you were >>talking to Chiba about distributing his changes under LGPL. For some >>reason you decided to keep this issue off the mailing list. > > > Wait a minute. The 'OpenC++ code' we are talking about here has > two copyright holders, Chiba and Xerox. Chiba agreed to relicense > under LGPL, and the Xerox code is being phased out right now. Have I said otherwise? > Please don't construct some conspiracy around this. What conspiracy? > It is very > unfortunate that you believe the LGPL conditions make the code > unusable for you, but that's something you have to live with. > > It's you who doesn't want to give the freedoms that are tied into > LGPL to others. Whether OpenC++ will be distributed under LGPL depends on the outcome of the discussion which will take place in this forum. For the records: I have never voted for or against LGPL; this is only your asumption that "LGPL conditions make the code unusable for" me. Moreover, I have not opposed changing OpenC++ license if there is a consensus about it. You seem to ignore the fact that changing OpenC++ license CANNOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT and requires negotiations with Xerox Co. You also ignore the fact that last week I wrote that I am about to start the process of standardizing OpenC++ license in the end of this week. > This finger pointing isn't very constructive, so I'd suggest we either > stop this aspect of the discussion, or at least take it offline. > I asked last week whether anybody had issues with the LGPL, and you > were the only one who voiced his disagreement. There were voices againt GNU licenses in the past. Please also note that nobody voiced agreement. Let me bring this issue on the list in a separate thread. >>I understand that you have the legal right not to relicense >>your changes >>under OpenC++ license and thus block their incorporation back into >>OpenC++. However in my opinion this is unfair, counterproductive and >>certainly not in the spirit of open source community. And, >>above all, it >>can be hardly called a "cooperation" between the projects. > > > It is highly demagogical and polemic to accuse LGPL for being > counter-productive and 'not in the spirit of open source'. Please read my post again. I am not accusing LGPL of anything. I just claim that your decision of not allowing changes to be merged back into OpenC++ under its current license is unfair, counterproductive and certainly not in the spirit of open source community. Also step back and look at this situation: OpenC++ has a specific non-standard license which is in place for many years (you contributed under it yourself). However now you confront the OpenC++ community with ultimatum "you have to switch to LGPL or you wouldn't get patches from Synopsis". Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has not taken place. Would you agree to contribute your patches under OpenC++ license if OpenC++ has a standard OSI-approved or Boost license? Best regards Grzegorz |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X