Greg M. Johnson <p t e r a n d o n @ the### [at] startswithycom> wrote:
> http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/01/17/201221&from=rss

"Although the license allows distribution, some developers and project
administrators are fearful to ship the application because they claim
the license is confusing -- and that it's not the GPL."

  "It's not GPL" seems to be a sadly common attitude. Too many people
seem to think that GPL is the only existing open source license.

  I have had personal experiences on how oppressive the GPL license is.

  We worked for quite many years on a project which was more or less
sponsored by Nokia. At one point they decided that the whole project
was to be distributed under the NOKOS license, which is an OSI approved
one. That was just ok.

  However, we had to be very careful all the time to not to accidentally
use any GPL code in our project because that would have infringed the
GPL license. It doesn't matter if you are making software under an
OSI approved license, you can't use GPL code if you are not making a
GPL software. With every 3rd-party library we used we had to make very
sure it was under the LGPL or another similar license. GPL was no good,
and the culprit was the GPL license itself.

  Well, in the last few years that the project lasted, Nokia pulled out
of it completely, which meant that all the new code we wrote for the
project could be licensed as we liked.
  Licensing the new code under the GPL briefly came into discussion,
but we had to quickly discard the possibility, again because of the
GPL license itself: We can't put part of the code under the GPL if
other parts (in this case the majority) of the code are under another
license (regarldess of it being an OSI approved one).
  Naturally we couldn't re-license the other parts of the code because
they were already licensed under NOKOS.

  It is often said that the GPL is like a virus. However, in our case
it was the complete opposite: Even though we wanted to use it, we
couldn't, so the GPL license itself forbade the "contraction".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   However, we had to be very careful all the time to not to accidentally
> use any GPL code in our project because that would have infringed the
> GPL license. It doesn't matter if you are making software under an
> OSI approved license, you can't use GPL code if you are not making a
> GPL software. With every 3rd-party library we used we had to make very
> sure it was under the LGPL or another similar license. GPL was no good,
> and the culprit was the GPL license itself.

Note the current GPLv3 draft somewhat addresses this problem by making 
it possible to create compatible variants of the license with additional 
restrictions or permissions (see http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft section 7. 
License Compatibility).

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 31 Oct. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/01/17/201221&from=rss
> 
> It mentions the controversy with Knoppix, of which I've read with interest:
> "It appears to me that Klaus has not read the license in full," Cason said.
> "It's not reasonable to read bits of it and take them out of context -- the
> license must be taken as a whole."

Feels good to read some interesting news.

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> "...but prevent developers of Linux distributions from using code from 
> POV-Ray and calling it their own."

He has now corrected that.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

> BTW that article has some inaccuracies, please don't take the quotes
> attributed to me as being exactly what I said.
>

Could I push you for a clarification please.

If I develop a Windows Application that utilises a Web-Service that in turn 
calls POV-Ray to provide rendered images.  Would it be sufficient for my 
Windows Application to credit POV Ray and the POV Ray team?

Post a reply to this message

Josh wrote:
> If I develop a Windows Application that utilises a Web-Service that in turn 
> calls POV-Ray to provide rendered images.  Would it be sufficient for my 
> Windows Application to credit POV Ray and the POV Ray team?

Read the license, please.

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Read the license, please.

  Seriously, the license is very long and full of legalese. It may be
a bit hard to understand what exactly is and isn't allowed.

  Perhaps a shortened (but in no way formal/official) version which
just tells plain and simple, using clear examples, what can and cannot
be done?
  A big warning could be put in the beginning saying something along the
lines of "this is not the official usage license, this just presents in
simpler terms what the license allows and forbids, but is in no way
legally valid nor complete; if in doubt, read the actual license".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Read the license, please.
>
> Thorsten

Okay, I have read the agreement, but it seems opposed to the comments "made" 
by Chris in the article.

So , any chance of a ruling, explanation, clarification.

Post a reply to this message

Josh wrote:
> Okay, I have read the agreement, but it seems opposed to the comments "made" 
> by Chris in the article.

No, the license is the *binding* legal agreement. Quotes and misquotes (as 
well as their interpretations and misinterpretations) in the article are 
*no* binding legal agreement. The license is *the* binding legal agreement!

	Thorsten Froehlich, POV-Team

Post a reply to this message

Josh wrote:
> Okay, I have read the agreement, but it seems opposed to the comments "made" 
> by Chris in the article.
> 
> So , any chance of a ruling, explanation, clarification. 

Disclaimer - note that in my following comments I am not giving legal advice
nor am I taking a stance for or against any particular use; this is just my
opinion.

The article contains some generalizations and in particular does not go into
detail in some cases. For example, in the section on commercial bundling,
while it mentions that commercial bundling (inclusion with programs for sale)
has been allowed, it doesn't go on to say that this requires explicit
permission from the team co-ordinator (since this is not the article's
purpose - it's a discussion on the difficulties of changing a license, not a
detailed examination of the meaning of our current license).

Regarding your question about a web service, the answer is 'it depends'.
Specifically you mention that the windows app uses a web service; if that is
the case then it appears to me that at the very least the implementor of the
web service is the one who has to be thinking of a license. It also depends
on what the windows application does; for example, would it be the sort of
application that effectively gives the user full remote control of POV-Ray?
(in which case it may be that they need to agree to our license), or is it
something that is just rendering images, and the user is oblivious to this?

Even in the latter case there are questions about what can and can't be done
since the remote use of software is something that hasn't yet I think been
fully clarified in law.

As a general guide I will say that the team isn't against reasonable use,
particularly if there is no profit in it. If you have a specific use in mind
and can give definitive details then you ought to write to the address given
in the license and ask.

-- Chris Cason
   POV-Team co-ordinator

Post a reply to this message