Also before I put much time into this, will the gnu license you picked allow commercial developers to use this without providing source code of our app to anyone who asks for it? That's the biggest thing I can't stand about gnu license is that I'm going to have to make either all my source available or make sure I segment out this code so that if requested I make it available.
I'd much just work on this as a public domain project or some other sort of license that lets the iphone developer community make whatever use they can out of it.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Yes. The SyncDocs code for the iPhone is provided under the LGPL, which can be mixed freely with open or closed source code.
From the FAQ (which I'll split into a separate entry):
"[The LGPL] simply requires that if you make changes to the syncing code and provide application binaries to a third-party, you must provide the source code for the updates to the syncing code upon request of that third-party. If no changes are made, no extra requirements are placed on the implementors."
As for "providing the source code for the updates", it can be by mailing a CD, or whatever means is reasonable, including the cost of making and shipping the CD. Of course if you give it to me, I can put your changes up on this site for you.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
a) give prominent notice that you are using the LGPL'd software in your application
b) include a copy of both LGPL and GPL
d) provide either
0) the application in a form that can be re-linked against a new version of the LGPLd library
or
1) the application using a shared library mechanism such that the LGPLd library can be replaced by simply dropping in a new version.
It is point d) that prevents the use of this library in iPhone applications since it is not possible to ship apps that require additional frameworks (Apples rules) nor are end-users allowed to relink their apps (code-signing requirement).
Personally, I'm with the GNU guys in recommending that you never use the LGPL for libraries. However, I believe you should use a modified BSD license which truly *is* free. If you read what the GNU guys say here http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html you can see that this license is *not* intended as a mechanism for you to share with *everyone*, which is the true philanthropist view; instead, it is a weapon to be used to force other people to conform to their ways.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I believe you are correct about the LGPL requiring the ability for a user to replace an LGPL library in a larger application. I also realize that users cannot recompile or relink these applications.
I would prefer not using a BSD licence because then developers would be free to make changes to the code base without sending them back to me or sharing them with other developers. So currently, the licencing for SyncDocs is more stringent than I prefer or require. I will not be going after people to open their applications: I only want to ensure that everyone benefits from work done on SyncDocs.
I'm not currently aware of a licence that requires developers to make their changes available while also not allowing the users the ability to drop in a new SyncDocs library to their application. I welcome suggestions.
I use both BSD and GPL software regularly, and I am aware of the differences.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Personally, I wouldn't sweat people sharing back - I'd just include a note in the license that says "oh, and if you make improvements, pass them back or karma will get you back" and leave it at that.
Since the client library isn't really useful unless the server changes in tandem, and the official SyncDocs server won't incorporate their improvements, it seems pointless for people to make changes without sharing them into the server code base.
Currently, the client library is *completely unusable* to anyone who actually respects what the license demands. This is not to say "inconvenient" or "clumsy". It is 100% non-functional. Your use of the LGPL means that *no-one* writing iPhone apps benefits from SyncDocs, as far as I can see. And those who are currently using it are clearly ignoring the terms under which it is licensed, which is exactly what the "ip-thieves" (that the LGPL tries to protect against) will do as well...
Its fine to say that *you* won't complain that its being used in violation of the LGPL, because you recognise the problems of the underlying platform - however, there are GNU zealots out there that will complain on your behalf, because all who don't respect the GosPeL are infidels who deserve to be struck down. Well, not quite but certainly I've seen the flames get almost that bad.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Jeff, thank you for your comments. I've thought a lot about the licencing of SyncDocs lately. To any developers reading this post, please relax, I'm not proposing any changes that are different than what we've agreed upon (implicitly or explicitly) on the project's FAQ page.
From your post:
"Since the client library isn't really useful unless the server changes in tandem, and the official SyncDocs server won't incorporate their improvements, it seems pointless for people to make changes without sharing them into the server code base."
Unfortunately, things aren't quite that simple. Emiliano, the developer of ComicZeal, did quite a bit of work rewriting things so that the downloads could proceed asynchronously. This work made it possible to display a progress indicator during downloads. I'm not sure if Emiliano would have made this code public without a GPL licence*, but he did make these changes public. Other developers have worked with me on other features, but Emiliano's changes were done on his own, so that's why I'm calling attention to them, specifically. (It was also a fair amount of work.)
So the licence seems to be doing what I need, even though legally it requires more than I care for.
I like the idea of limiting the licence to express my desires for how the code should be used exactly, but at the same time, I believe people respect a GPL licence more, since it has been tested in court and many large firms have agreed to release their products under the terms of the GPL. I can't say the same for some licence I make up myself.
Ultimately, I want SyncDocs to be used in many applications, since that will drive out bugs the fastest (and I can't discount the ego boost). Then if I or anyone else releases more iPhone applications with SyncDocs support, they will have the benefit of that testing, and the group effort of the extra features.
Since I'm the copyright holder, I'm the one would have to go after people for licence violations, so there's no way the FSF or other people could force application developers to drop SyncDocs support. So the end result is that I'm using a stricter licence than I need with an FAQ that describes my intent and desires for the SyncDocs code base.
* Canadian spelling.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Also before I put much time into this, will the gnu license you picked allow commercial developers to use this without providing source code of our app to anyone who asks for it? That's the biggest thing I can't stand about gnu license is that I'm going to have to make either all my source available or make sure I segment out this code so that if requested I make it available.
I'd much just work on this as a public domain project or some other sort of license that lets the iphone developer community make whatever use they can out of it.
Yes. The SyncDocs code for the iPhone is provided under the LGPL, which can be mixed freely with open or closed source code.
From the FAQ (which I'll split into a separate entry):
"[The LGPL] simply requires that if you make changes to the syncing code and provide application binaries to a third-party, you must provide the source code for the updates to the syncing code upon request of that third-party. If no changes are made, no extra requirements are placed on the implementors."
As for "providing the source code for the updates", it can be by mailing a CD, or whatever means is reasonable, including the cost of making and shipping the CD. Of course if you give it to me, I can put your changes up on this site for you.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken as to how the LGPL works. Referring to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html, section 4 requires that you
a) give prominent notice that you are using the LGPL'd software in your application
b) include a copy of both LGPL and GPL
d) provide either
0) the application in a form that can be re-linked against a new version of the LGPLd library
or
1) the application using a shared library mechanism such that the LGPLd library can be replaced by simply dropping in a new version.
It is point d) that prevents the use of this library in iPhone applications since it is not possible to ship apps that require additional frameworks (Apples rules) nor are end-users allowed to relink their apps (code-signing requirement).
Personally, I'm with the GNU guys in recommending that you never use the LGPL for libraries. However, I believe you should use a modified BSD license which truly *is* free. If you read what the GNU guys say here http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html you can see that this license is *not* intended as a mechanism for you to share with *everyone*, which is the true philanthropist view; instead, it is a weapon to be used to force other people to conform to their ways.
I believe you are correct about the LGPL requiring the ability for a user to replace an LGPL library in a larger application. I also realize that users cannot recompile or relink these applications.
I would prefer not using a BSD licence because then developers would be free to make changes to the code base without sending them back to me or sharing them with other developers. So currently, the licencing for SyncDocs is more stringent than I prefer or require. I will not be going after people to open their applications: I only want to ensure that everyone benefits from work done on SyncDocs.
I'm not currently aware of a licence that requires developers to make their changes available while also not allowing the users the ability to drop in a new SyncDocs library to their application. I welcome suggestions.
I use both BSD and GPL software regularly, and I am aware of the differences.
Personally, I wouldn't sweat people sharing back - I'd just include a note in the license that says "oh, and if you make improvements, pass them back or karma will get you back" and leave it at that.
Since the client library isn't really useful unless the server changes in tandem, and the official SyncDocs server won't incorporate their improvements, it seems pointless for people to make changes without sharing them into the server code base.
Currently, the client library is *completely unusable* to anyone who actually respects what the license demands. This is not to say "inconvenient" or "clumsy". It is 100% non-functional. Your use of the LGPL means that *no-one* writing iPhone apps benefits from SyncDocs, as far as I can see. And those who are currently using it are clearly ignoring the terms under which it is licensed, which is exactly what the "ip-thieves" (that the LGPL tries to protect against) will do as well...
Its fine to say that *you* won't complain that its being used in violation of the LGPL, because you recognise the problems of the underlying platform - however, there are GNU zealots out there that will complain on your behalf, because all who don't respect the GosPeL are infidels who deserve to be struck down. Well, not quite but certainly I've seen the flames get almost that bad.
Jeff, thank you for your comments. I've thought a lot about the licencing of SyncDocs lately. To any developers reading this post, please relax, I'm not proposing any changes that are different than what we've agreed upon (implicitly or explicitly) on the project's FAQ page.
From your post:
"Since the client library isn't really useful unless the server changes in tandem, and the official SyncDocs server won't incorporate their improvements, it seems pointless for people to make changes without sharing them into the server code base."
Unfortunately, things aren't quite that simple. Emiliano, the developer of ComicZeal, did quite a bit of work rewriting things so that the downloads could proceed asynchronously. This work made it possible to display a progress indicator during downloads. I'm not sure if Emiliano would have made this code public without a GPL licence*, but he did make these changes public. Other developers have worked with me on other features, but Emiliano's changes were done on his own, so that's why I'm calling attention to them, specifically. (It was also a fair amount of work.)
So the licence seems to be doing what I need, even though legally it requires more than I care for.
I like the idea of limiting the licence to express my desires for how the code should be used exactly, but at the same time, I believe people respect a GPL licence more, since it has been tested in court and many large firms have agreed to release their products under the terms of the GPL. I can't say the same for some licence I make up myself.
Ultimately, I want SyncDocs to be used in many applications, since that will drive out bugs the fastest (and I can't discount the ego boost). Then if I or anyone else releases more iPhone applications with SyncDocs support, they will have the benefit of that testing, and the group effort of the extra features.
Since I'm the copyright holder, I'm the one would have to go after people for licence violations, so there's no way the FSF or other people could force application developers to drop SyncDocs support. So the end result is that I'm using a stricter licence than I need with an FAQ that describes my intent and desires for the SyncDocs code base.
* Canadian spelling.