Menu
▾
▴
xmlvm-users
|
From: Sascha H. <sa...@gm...> - 2011-01-08 21:10:54
|
Dear community, in a recent discussion the question about licensing and Apple AppStore conditions was raised. We understand that this is an important topic for our community, so we want to let you know that we are motivated to do everything possible so that developers do not need to fear any negative consequences from using XMLVM. As you know, last year we decided to abandon the GPL license in favor of the much more liberal LGPL license to make it easier for you to publish your application to the Apple AppStore and other platforms. If we find that changing our license again or other measures are needed to enable you to publish your application, we will take action so you don't need to worry. We want you to know that we, the XMLVM core team, strive to enable you, the applications developers, to publish your apps wherever you want. After all, you are the ones we are building XMLVM for. Sascha, on behalf of the XMLVM team |
|
From: Leo I. <leo...@gm...> - 2011-01-08 22:25:20
|
I have good news. I think that the apple app store licence doesn't have restrictions on where the source code comes from (but I'm not sure). Question: Does source code created with XMLVM have to be licensed under LGPL? The question becomes a fact of whether any code created with xmlvm counts as a derivative work. My guess would be that we could bend it and say no. Because the code would have been written by the developer, it was from scratch. XMLVM just converted it (from java to c/objective-c) so it wasn't derived from XMLVM, it was just a component of it. i.e. If I write a front-end to a library, then that's derivative. But if I just use one thing in an unrelated program (such as zlib in a word processor) then the unrelated program (the processor) would not be derived from the used code (zlib). This is ok because we are using LGPL, so this theory applies. As long as developers of xmlvm don't go ahead and sue users of xmlvm for not licensing xmlvm-converted code under LGPL (which they shouldn't be able to do anyway) then I think we should be fine. On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Sascha Haeberling <sa...@gm...> wrote: > Dear community, > > in a recent discussion the question about licensing and Apple AppStore > conditions was raised. We understand that this is an important topic for our > community, so we want to let you know that we are motivated to do everything > possible so that developers do not need to fear any negative consequences > from using XMLVM. > > As you know, last year we decided to abandon the GPL license in favor of > the much more liberal LGPL license to make it easier for you to publish your > application to the Apple AppStore and other platforms. If we find that > changing our license again or other measures are needed to enable you to > publish your application, we will take action so you don't need to worry. > > We want you to know that we, the XMLVM core team, strive to enable you, the > applications developers, to publish your apps wherever you want. After all, > you are the ones we are building XMLVM for. > > Sascha, on behalf of the XMLVM team > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any > company > that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to > best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure > and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
|
From: Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...> - 2011-01-09 09:49:38
|
On Jan 9, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Leo Izen wrote: > I have good news. I think that the apple app store licence doesn't have restrictions on where the source code comes from (but I'm not sure). > > Question: Does source code created with XMLVM have to be licensed under LGPL? The question becomes a fact of whether any code created with xmlvm counts as a derivative work. My guess would be that we could bend it and say no. Because the code would have been written by the developer, it was from scratch. XMLVM just converted it (from java to c/objective-c) so it wasn't derived from XMLVM, it was just a component of it. i.e. If I write a front-end to a library, then that's derivative. But if I just use one thing in an unrelated program (such as zlib in a word processor) then the unrelated program (the processor) would not be derived from the used code (zlib). This is ok because we are using LGPL, so this theory applies. As long as developers of xmlvm don't go ahead and sue users of xmlvm for not licensing xmlvm-converted code under LGPL (which they shouldn't be able to do anyway) then I think we should be fine. The problem is not with the code written by a developer. This issue is clear and closed. All code written by you has the license you decide, as long as it is compatible with LGPL (which practically allows even closed source software to do so). The problem arises with the compatibility/glue library, which is distributed along your binary code (and is LGPL). Right now I don't believe there is a direct problem with the AppStore and the LGPL license. But I am not a lawyer and probably Apple would prefer to drop an application instead of sit and solve the situation. Since we have the core developers agreement that the compatibility library would always be in a license compatible with commercial distribution, this is enough for me. |
|
From: Leo I. <leo...@gm...> - 2011-01-09 18:44:17
|
How about you licence XMLVM under LGPL with all parts except the compatibility library, which you licence under public domain? Because you can't do anything with the library without xmlvm, it can't be stolen by proprietary software, but it can be used under apple's licence. On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Panayotis Katsaloulis < pan...@pa...> wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Leo Izen wrote: > > > I have good news. I think that the apple app store licence doesn't have > restrictions on where the source code comes from (but I'm not sure). > > > > Question: Does source code created with XMLVM have to be licensed under > LGPL? The question becomes a fact of whether any code created with xmlvm > counts as a derivative work. My guess would be that we could bend it and say > no. Because the code would have been written by the developer, it was from > scratch. XMLVM just converted it (from java to c/objective-c) so it wasn't > derived from XMLVM, it was just a component of it. i.e. If I write a > front-end to a library, then that's derivative. But if I just use one thing > in an unrelated program (such as zlib in a word processor) then the > unrelated program (the processor) would not be derived from the used code > (zlib). This is ok because we are using LGPL, so this theory applies. As > long as developers of xmlvm don't go ahead and sue users of xmlvm for not > licensing xmlvm-converted code under LGPL (which they shouldn't be able to > do anyway) then I think we should be fine. > > The problem is not with the code written by a developer. This issue is > clear and closed. All code written by you has the license you decide, as > long as it is compatible with LGPL (which practically allows even closed > source software to do so). > > The problem arises with the compatibility/glue library, which is > distributed along your binary code (and is LGPL). > > Right now I don't believe there is a direct problem with the AppStore and > the LGPL license. But I am not a lawyer and probably Apple would prefer to > drop an application instead of sit and solve the situation. Since we have > the core developers agreement that the compatibility library would always be > in a license compatible with commercial distribution, this is enough for me. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any > company > that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to > best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure > and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > |
|
From: Tor L. <tm...@ik...> - 2011-01-09 19:59:12
|
Wasn't the problem with VLC (the withdrawal of which from the App Store seems to have caused this discussion) that some of the copyright holders were opposed to it being offered on the App Store? Isn't the situation very different with XMLVM, as porting apps to iOS, implicitly then for offering them on the App Store, is the point with it... In XMLVM's case It can't really be any surprise to copyright holders of XMLVM library/glue code that their code gets included in iOS apps. The FSF's interpretation of the LGPL, for instance, is irrelevant, if they have nothing to do with the software in question. --tml |
|
From: Hansi R. <su...@su...> - 2011-01-09 22:17:45
|
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Tor Lillqvist <tm...@ik...> wrote: > Wasn't the problem with VLC (the withdrawal of which from the App > Store seems to have caused this discussion) that some of the copyright > holders were opposed to it being offered on the App Store? > afaik that was a completely different issue, some important parts of vlc are licensed under the gpl (e.g. the h264 decoder). the problem was that the appstore imposes restrictions stronger than the gpl allows, thus apple decided to pull the app. anyways, here's a good read: http://huyzing.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ best, hansi. |
|
From: Sascha H. <sa...@xm...> - 2011-01-09 22:44:47
|
Hansi, while the dispute on VLC was indeed about the GPL, it wasn't Apple who decided to pull the app, but as Tor mentioned, one of the Copyright holders of the VLC project. As far as I know, this person decided to file a complaint to Apple that the app could not be distributed in the AppStore due to GPL restrictions. Apple responded to this complaint by pulling the app. The message that we, the XMLVM team, want to give to you is that we would never do such a thing, if it would be possible, which it isn't.The LPGL should, with small modifications, be in accordance with AppStore rules. So the bottom line is that XMLVM developers should not worry that their apps might get pulled because of licensing issues. // Sascha On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Hansi Raber <su...@su...> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Tor Lillqvist <tm...@ik...> wrote: > >> Wasn't the problem with VLC (the withdrawal of which from the App >> Store seems to have caused this discussion) that some of the copyright >> holders were opposed to it being offered on the App Store? >> > afaik that was a completely different issue, > some important parts of vlc are licensed under the gpl (e.g. the h264 > decoder). > the problem was that the appstore imposes restrictions stronger than the > gpl allows, thus apple decided to pull the app. > > > > anyways, here's a good read: > > http://huyzing.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ > > > > > best, hansi. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any > company > that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to > best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure > and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
|
From: Hansi R. <su...@su...> - 2011-01-09 23:15:26
|
hey! The message that we, the XMLVM team, want to give to you is that we would > never do such a thing, if it would be possible, which it isn't.The LPGL > should, with small modifications, be in accordance with AppStore rules. right, and i'm more than amazed by how open your are about this. i don't mean to be a jerk about this or doing pointless discussion that go nowhere, but i think that picking a license that expresses your intentions best is key, otherwise any promise made now might be hard to live up to. this seems to be what amount of work the lgpl brings with it if one _actually_ wants to be compliant: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2010-August/026708.html sure, ffmpeg is known for it's hall of shame and their overal policy towards license violations. however, if i understand correctly the freedoms that come with the lgpl apply to anyone, not just the devs. anyone must have the ability to exchange the xmlvm portion of an app with a newer version. in some cases this is completely impossible because xmlvm mixes together different code bases into single files which makes it impossible to just exchange the xmlvm part later on. imho the best would be to use a bsd license for the output modules (by that i mean the template files and runtime libaries). everything else could even be gpl without problems. as i wrote a month or so ago, a license exception like the one bison has for certain source files would also be just fine. best, hansi. So the bottom line is that XMLVM developers should not worry that their apps > might get pulled because of licensing issues. > > // Sascha > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Hansi Raber <su...@su...> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Tor Lillqvist <tm...@ik...> wrote: >> >>> Wasn't the problem with VLC (the withdrawal of which from the App >>> Store seems to have caused this discussion) that some of the copyright >>> holders were opposed to it being offered on the App Store? >>> >> afaik that was a completely different issue, >> some important parts of vlc are licensed under the gpl (e.g. the h264 >> decoder). >> the problem was that the appstore imposes restrictions stronger than the >> gpl allows, thus apple decided to pull the app. >> >> >> >> anyways, here's a good read: >> >> http://huyzing.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ >> >> >> >> >> best, hansi. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any >> company >> that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how >> to >> best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information >> secure >> and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl >> _______________________________________________ >> xmlvm-users mailing list >> xml...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >> >> > |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2011-01-09 23:44:14
|
any license imposes rules that you will have to follow. One aspect that I personally like about the GNU type licenses is that it imposes a "community aspect": if you make a modification, you need to contribute this back to the community. BSD does not impose this. You might argue that it is in a developers best interest to contribute modifications back in order to stay in sync with the main trunk. This is certainly true for small patches/fixes, but I would also like to impose this for new modules that the developer might decide to withhold for competitive reasons. There is a bit of a mentality out there that Open Source just springs into being and free for anyone to use. A GPL-type license is just a little reminder also to give back. Well, I suggest to tackle the problems as they arise. As Sascha pointed out, we do want you to be able to use XMLVM for your proprietary products. Just don't forget that someone has to do all the work and perhaps think of way to participate in the community. Arno On 1/9/11 3:15 PM, Hansi Raber wrote: > hey! > > The message that we, the XMLVM team, want to give to you is that we > would never do such a thing, if it would be possible, which it > isn't.The LPGL should, with small modifications, be in accordance > with AppStore rules. > > right, and i'm more than amazed by how open your are about this. > > i don't mean to be a jerk about this or doing pointless discussion that > go nowhere, but i think that picking a > license that expresses your intentions best is key, otherwise any > promise made now might be hard to live up to. > > this seems to be what amount of work the lgpl brings with it if one > _actually_ wants to be compliant: > http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2010-August/026708.html > sure, ffmpeg is known for it's hall of shame and their overal policy > towards license violations. > > however, if i understand correctly the freedoms that come with the lgpl > apply to > anyone, not just the devs. anyone must have the ability to exchange the > xmlvm portion of an app with a newer version. > in some cases this is completely impossible because xmlvm mixes together > different code bases into single files which > makes it impossible to just exchange the xmlvm part later on. > > imho the best would be to use a bsd license for the output modules (by > that i mean the template files and > runtime libaries). everything else could even be gpl without problems. > as i wrote a month or so ago, a license exception like the one bison has > for certain source files would also > be just fine. > > > > best, hansi. > > > So the bottom line is that XMLVM developers should not worry that > their apps might get pulled because of licensing issues. > > // Sascha > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Hansi Raber <su...@su... > <mailto:su...@su...>> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Tor Lillqvist <tm...@ik... > <mailto:tm...@ik...>> wrote: > > Wasn't the problem with VLC (the withdrawal of which from > the App > Store seems to have caused this discussion) that some of the > copyright > holders were opposed to it being offered on the App Store? > > afaik that was a completely different issue, > some important parts of vlc are licensed under the gpl (e.g. the > h264 decoder). > the problem was that the appstore imposes restrictions stronger > than the > gpl allows, thus apple decided to pull the app. > > > > anyways, here's a good read: > http://huyzing.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ > > > > > best, hansi. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success > of any company > that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. > Learn how to > best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' > information secure > and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > <mailto:xml...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company > that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to > best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure > and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl > > > > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users |
|
From: Hansi R. <su...@su...> - 2011-01-10 08:06:50
|
hey! There is a bit of a mentality out there that Open Source just springs > into being and free for anyone to use. quite an allegation, and as far as it concerns me you couldn't be further from the truth. > A GPL-type license is just a > little reminder also to give back. > well, this "little reminder" might (as i wrote earlier) cause some rather nasty legal issues (even if no one sues). also --- give _what_ back? maybe xmlvm is not perfect yet, but it's quite usable and it'll continue to improve. for the average xmlvm user it shouldn't be necessary to even look at the source. you make it sound like i suggested you give out software under the wtfpl, all i was saying is that one small portion of xmlvm better be excluded from the (l)gpl (the template files and compat libs) to circumvent some weird practicalities. either way, it seems that using lgpl was a decission not a discussion. in that sense good luck ... best, hansi. |
|
From: Hansi R. <su...@su...> - 2011-01-10 09:03:50
|
p.s. sorry if i replied in my "pissed off" voice, i'm rather grumpy in the morning and that's not the best time to write an email. i do genuinely mean what i said, please imagine it was written in a nicer tone. sincere apologies... best, h,- On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Hansi Raber <su...@su...> wrote: > hey! > > There is a bit of a mentality out there that Open Source just springs >> into being and free for anyone to use. > > quite an allegation, and as far as it concerns me you couldn't be further > from the truth. > > >> A GPL-type license is just a >> little reminder also to give back. >> > well, this "little reminder" might (as i wrote earlier) cause some rather > nasty legal issues (even if no one sues). > > also --- give _what_ back? maybe xmlvm is not perfect yet, but it's quite > usable and it'll continue to improve. for the average xmlvm user it > shouldn't > be necessary to even look at the source. > > > you make it sound like i suggested you give out software under the wtfpl, > all i was saying is that one small portion of xmlvm better be excluded from > the (l)gpl > (the template files and compat libs) to circumvent some weird > practicalities. > > > > > either way, it seems that using lgpl was a decission not a discussion. in > that sense > good luck ... > > > > > > > best, hansi. > |
|
From: Paul P. <bay...@gm...> - 2011-01-10 16:24:41
|
I am happy to see your apology. Please keep in mind this is a friendly group, and I have not seen anyone here with ill intentions. I want to say that I am quite appreciative of everything the XMLVM group has provided, and the support & encouragement they exhibit. They have also been very open in listening to the community & discussing major changes, even though they should have the authority to make a change or not without discussion so since it is their creation. As a third party, it seems more appropriate that I am the one to say your attack was unprovoked, and I hope we can act courteous amongst each other. But again, I am happy to see you have already recognized that. Thanks, Paul On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Hansi Raber <su...@su...> wrote: > p.s. sorry if i replied in my "pissed off" voice, i'm rather grumpy in the > morning and that's not > the best time to write an email. > i do genuinely mean what i said, please imagine it was written in a nicer > tone. > > sincere apologies... > best, h,- > > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Hansi Raber <su...@su...> wrote: > >> hey! >> >> There is a bit of a mentality out there that Open Source just springs >>> into being and free for anyone to use. >> >> quite an allegation, and as far as it concerns me you couldn't be further >> from the truth. >> >> >>> A GPL-type license is just a >>> little reminder also to give back. >>> >> well, this "little reminder" might (as i wrote earlier) cause some rather >> nasty legal issues (even if no one sues). >> >> also --- give _what_ back? maybe xmlvm is not perfect yet, but it's quite >> usable and it'll continue to improve. for the average xmlvm user it >> shouldn't >> be necessary to even look at the source. >> >> >> you make it sound like i suggested you give out software under the wtfpl, >> all i was saying is that one small portion of xmlvm better be excluded >> from the (l)gpl >> (the template files and compat libs) to circumvent some weird >> practicalities. >> >> >> >> >> either way, it seems that using lgpl was a decission not a discussion. in >> that sense >> good luck ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> best, hansi. >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any > company > that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to > best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure > and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
×
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