10 Jun
2010
10 Jun
'10
11:19 a.m.
Hi
I write a little code from time to time. I just discovered that at least
some of it is still under GPL. Now I'm thinking about changing that to
GPLv3.
1) Can I Just Do It, simply by stating on the webpage and/or in the
software that it's under GPLv3.
2) Is it (as I understand from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html) recommended to change to
GPLv3? What are the main advantages (both for the community and me) with
GPLv3 and are there any drawbacks?
NB: I *did* try to read + understand the text on the GPL webpage, but
it's a little too much for me. So I'm hoping for some simple pointers
and recommendations.
NB2: I also wrote some "patches" for various synths and stuff like that.
I know it's been brought up here before, but forgot the answers. Could
that be released under GPL(v3) as well or is it better to use CC, and if
so which dialect is recommended? The "patches" are everything from ams
presets, zyn presets, pd patches + externals, csound/blue code and some
more I might have forgotten.
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
11:49 a.m.
On 2010-06-10 11:22, Louigi Verona wrote:
Start from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5G7FU5j2Uc
Nice!
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
11:38 a.m.
Atte André Jensen wrote:
Hi
I write a little code from time to time. I just discovered that at least
some of it is still under GPL. Now I'm thinking about changing that to
GPLv3.
1) Can I Just Do It, simply by stating on the webpage and/or in the
software that it's under GPLv3.
If its your code, then yes.
If its other peoples code and the GPLv2 license says "GPL version 2
or later" then is find to link with GPLv3 code. If you intend to
modify it heavily you can simply change the license to GPLv3 leaving
the copyright unmolested (apart from maybe adding your own (c) if
you are doing any significant additions.
2) Is it (as I understand from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html) recommended to change to
GPLv3? What are the main advantages (both for the community and me) with
GPLv3 and are there any drawbacks?
The only problem is with code with a GPLv2 header where the part that says
"GPL version 2 or later" has been removed. I believe GPLv2only and GPLv3
code is not compatible.
Fors software licenses, this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
is really good.
NB2: I also wrote some "patches" for various
synths and stuff like that.
I know it's been brought up here before, but forgot the answers. Could
that be released under GPL(v3) as well or is it better to use CC, and if
so which dialect is recommended?
CC Attribution (or maybe CC Share Alike) is probably best for synth patches.
Cheers,
Erik
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
11:53 a.m.
On 2010-06-10 11:38, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Atte André Jensen wrote:
It is.
I just realized that I also have done some software patches (diff files)
to some software, mostly a couple of patches to the chuck sourcecode.
How about that? It seems that chuck is under LGPL, if it matters...
1) Can I Just Do It, simply by stating on the
webpage and/or in the
software that it's under GPLv3.
If its your code, then yes. Fors software licenses, this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
is really good.
Thanks!
CC Attribution (or maybe CC Share Alike) is probably
best for synth patches.
Thanks! Again is it simply a matter of stating on the web page that the
licence is CC Attribution?
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
1:15 p.m.
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 11:53 +0200, Atte André Jensen wrote:
Thanks! Again is it simply a matter of stating on the
web page that the
licence is CC Attribution?
The CC licenses also have version numbers and a country/jurisdiction (or
unported). So an actual license could be CC BY 2.5 Denmark.
Ideally, you should describe how attribution should happen.
I'm very unsure about the interaction between international use and
country of origin of the author of a work (especially if that becomes
authors and countries ...).
So personally, I see putting my own work under some (unported) CC
license as a statement of my intentions, may there be gaping juristic
holes or not :)
Try http://creativecommons.org/choose/
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
4:17 p.m.
Excerpts from Thorsten Wilms's message of 2010-06-10 13:15:01 +0200:
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 11:53 +0200, Atte André Jensen
wrote:
Afaik the country only matters when there's a legal issue. So if for
example someone uses your CC BY 3.0 Denmark work without attribution and
you'd sue him, then Danish right would be used.
Something along those lines anyway..
--
Regards,
Philipp
--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen
offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Thanks! Again is it simply a matter of stating on
the web page that the
licence is CC Attribution?
The CC licenses also have version numbers and a country/jurisdiction (or
unported). So an actual license could be CC BY 2.5 Denmark.
Ideally, you should describe how attribution should happen.
I'm very unsure about the interaction between international use and
country of origin of the author of a work (especially if that becomes
authors and countries ...).
So personally, I see putting my own work under some (unported) CC
license as a statement of my intentions, may there be gaping juristic
holes or not :)
Try http://creativecommons.org/choose/
2:30 p.m.
* Atte André Jensen [2010-06-10 11:53]:
I just realized that I also have done some software
patches (diff files)
to some software, mostly a couple of patches to the chuck sourcecode.
How about that? It seems that chuck is under LGPL, if it matters...
I think it's customary, unless there is some notice to the contrary, to
assume that patches to open-source software are offered under the same
license as the base software. In any case, I think that patches
shouldn't be put under different licenses, as that would create lots of
headache to the original developers if they want to integrate them -
unless there's some very compelling reason to do otherwise, for example
to use some other substantial software package with a different license.
Alex
3:12 p.m.
On 06/10/2010 11:38 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Atte André Jensen wrote:
Drawbacks include that it becomes much harder to combine code of
difference [L]GPL license versions: It's a bit sad to look at the Matrix
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
The major reason why the [L]GPLv3 came to be is because of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
In short: with GPLv2 someone can use your code in a product and while
providing the source-code, prevent you from actually using your own
version on that product. (This can be because the vendor does not
publish the build-system or uses signatures on the builds).
A common scenario these days is that GPLv3 is incompatible with the
iPhone-app store, while GPLv2 is not.
Depending on your standpoint, this can be an advantage or disadvantage.
Hi
I write a little code from time to time. I just discovered that at least
some of it is still under GPL. Now I'm thinking about changing that to
GPLv3.
1) Can I Just Do It, simply by stating on the webpage and/or in the
software that it's under GPLv3.
If its your code, then yes.
If its other peoples code and the GPLv2 license says "GPL version 2
or later" then is find to link with GPLv3 code. If you intend to
modify it heavily you can simply change the license to GPLv3 leaving
the copyright unmolested (apart from maybe adding your own (c) if
you are doing any significant additions.
> 2) Is it (as I understand from
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html) recommended to change to
> GPLv3? What are the main advantages (both for the community and me) with
> GPLv3 and are there any drawbacks? The only problem is with code with a GPLv2 header
where the part that says
"GPL version 2 or later" has been removed. I believe GPLv2only and GPLv3
code is not compatible.
Fors software licenses, this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
is really good.
...unless you want them to become a Debian package.
Debian won't accept any CC licensed content in their official packages
(basically because none of the Creative Commons licenses have a "source"
requirement). Ubunutu however is not that pedantic about it.
You can license the samples under GPL or make them available more freely
(public-domain, MIT/X11, ..) to get them into Debian. Strictly speaking
you're not providing a "source" of the sound either but you make the
debian-legal people happy (well, it's not actually that simple, the
debian-legal team has some good points; but it can take months to read
and understand all the details involved.)
On that note: Here's Richard Stallmann singing for you in Terms of the
GPL: http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.au "If you are not used
to a meter of 7/8, you may perceive it as inability to keep time."
NB2: I also wrote some "patches" for
various synths and stuff like that.
I know it's been brought up here before, but forgot the answers. Could
that be released under GPL(v3) as well or is it better to use CC, and if
so which dialect is recommended?
CC Attribution (or maybe CC Share Alike) is probably best for synth patches. Cheers,
Erik
Ciao,
robin
3:32 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Robin Gareus <robin(a)gareus.org> wrote:
A common scenario these days is that GPLv3 is
incompatible with the
iPhone-app store, while GPLv2 is not.
Why do you say that? My impression was that section 6 of the GPLv2
made it incompatible with the App Store already.
Chris
4:31 p.m.
On 06/10/2010 03:32 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Robin Gareus
<robin(a)gareus.org> wrote:
I know a couple of iphone-devs who do that regularly and say it's
perfectly OK [to use GPLv2] as long as you provide the source on request.
I've just launched a google-search (there goes another wasted 30 mins)
and found that it's indeed a gray area.
A common scenario these days is that GPLv3 is
incompatible with the
iPhone-app store, while GPLv2 is not.
Why do you say that? My impression was that section 6 of the GPLv2
made it incompatible with the App Store already.
indeed:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement
and section 3 of GPLv2 causes a 2nd problem: "You may copy and
distribute the Program" - In case of the app-store it's only a
third-party (Apple's "App Store"), who is allowed to distribute it.
Apparently there are some tricks or workarounds around those:
eg. embed the source-code in your app (for section 6) and [also]
distribute it by other means than the app-store (for section 3).
At least that's what some students here do. OTOH you might be breaking
some Apple license requirements on the way..
NTL, there's apparently [still] a whole lot of GPL'ed apps in the
apps-store that have not been blocked or removed.
Anyway this is getting fairly OT and I don't even own an iPhone.
back to work,
robin
5:18 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Robin Gareus <robin(a)gareus.org> wrote:
I know a couple of iphone-devs who do that regularly
and say it's
perfectly OK [to use GPLv2] as long as you provide the source on request.
I've just launched a google-search (there goes another wasted 30 mins)
and found that it's indeed a gray area.
It doesn't seem all that grey.
Apparently there are some tricks or workarounds around
those:
eg. embed the source-code in your app (for section 6)
That wouldn't help for section 6. The issue there is that you're not
allowed to add extra constraints on use of the software when
redistributing it. But the App Store makes several, and enforces them
too.
I think this is one of those things which gets fudged for as long as
no one minds about it. If the copyright holder wants to distribute
the software with a GPL label on it and the user is happy with how
they get it, then nobody sees any practical problem. But make use of
a GPL'd library written by someone who does mind about such things,
and trouble will surely follow... if they find out about it.
Chris
11:42 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Atte André Jensen <atte(a)email.dk> wrote:
I write a little code from time to time. I just
discovered that at least
some of it is still under GPL. Now I'm thinking about changing that to
GPLv3.
1) Can I Just Do It, simply by stating on the webpage and/or in the software
that it's under GPLv3.
If you own the copyright, and it doesn't use any GPLv2-only libraries,
then yes. Though it won't affect any copies previously distributed.
2) Is it (as I understand from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html) recommended to change to
GPLv3? What are the main advantages (both for the community and me) with
GPLv3 and are there any drawbacks?
I think the practical drawbacks are:
* it is not compatible with GPLv2, so you can't mix v2-only and
v3-only code (you can mix v2-or-later and v3 code, but the result is
plain v3)
* the licence is quite complex (although I have read and understood
the whole of GPLv2, I can't say the same for v3)
As a consequence of this second point, I can't say with real
confidence what the advantages of v3 are. I _think_ that the main
ones are to disallow distributors from using technical means to
prevent users from running modified code, and to be more specific
about how any patents associated with the code must be licensed.
I'm sticking with v2 for my code at the moment, but there is some
complexity because some projects I work on have the "or later" clause
and some do not. I do worry that at some point, someone will change
to v3-only a library required by a v2-only application, and so make
the application illegal to distribute with newer versions of the
library. Indeed, it's not impossible that this has already happened
and I just haven't noticed it.
Chris
5334
days inactive
5334
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
12 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Alexandros Diamantidis -
Atte André Jensen -
Chris Cannam -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
Louigi Verona -
Philipp Überbacher -
Robin Gareus -
Thorsten Wilms