Emerald Editor Discussion
May 25, 2017, 11:31:36 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Poll
Question: Which license should Emerald Editor operate with?
GNU General Public License - 8 (72.7%)
GNU Lesser General Public License - 1 (9.1%)
BSD-style license - 2 (18.2%)
Crimson Editor license - 0 (0%)
Other (please reply) - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 11

Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: License  (Read 31014 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Feldon
Gem Cutter
****
Posts: 106


« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2007, 10:21:06 pm »

Interesting...  Joomla! is a website content management system.  It is licensed under the GPL, but they have proprietary plugins.
Logged
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2007, 11:15:42 pm »

For specifically plugins, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
For the GPL in general see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Cheesy GPL all the way, I say.

EDIT: Even more specific http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 11:18:11 pm by rageboy » Logged
Phil
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 427


« Reply #32 on: May 19, 2007, 12:24:53 am »

Quote
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.

So the plugins would need to be GPL because my guess is we would do it this way.

I guess my main issue with the GPL is the political ideology of the man behind it. I am an American with a strong conservative mindset, and Richard Stallman's ideology really annoys me. I am not sure I would contribute to a project that was licensed under the GPL.

Please don't be offended, I'm just telling you why I don't like the GPL. It's politics. I'll be ok with it if you guys use the GPL; I'll just probably stay on the CE side.

http://ezine.daemonnews.org/199905/gpl.html
http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_archive/gpl.shtml

Phil
« Last Edit: May 19, 2007, 12:27:09 am by Phil » Logged
Arantor
Site Administrator
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 618



« Reply #33 on: May 19, 2007, 12:28:41 am »

Fair comment.

I may have to go away and rethink what license EE should be released under.
Logged

"Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult!"
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #34 on: May 20, 2007, 02:32:17 pm »

If the plugins are the only issue, we could do LGPL and I think it would solve that problem.
Logged
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2007, 06:25:10 pm »

Something else that may be worth considering is a dual or triple (or more) license as Mozilla now does (MPL/GPL/LGPL). I don't quite understand how it works. I think it's licensed under both, sorta, in that derivative works can choose which they want to license under, but I'm not sure how that would work with our issues, or even if it applies.
Logged
automorphism
Prospector
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2007, 04:53:23 pm »

There have been some misleading comments about the GPL (esp. in the Daemon news article). Here are the facts:

- I can write a plugin under a proprietary licence without sharing the source code, using your API (this is why some Linux distributors can use proprietary drivers)
- I believe that the developer (owner) of the code, can change the license of the code, because you still own the copyright
Logged
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2007, 05:04:40 pm »

Those both sound off. I'm pretty sure the first part only applies to the LGPL, and that's the whole point of the GPL. If you look at the FAQ posted, it very much depends on how the plugin is called, but I think if it calls (ie uses) any GPL'ed functions, then the plugin itself must be under the GPL.
Second, I'm quite sure you can't change the license of GPL'ed code no matter who you are. I think the developer might be able to add a license but the GPL has to stay on all modified and original code, because after being GPL'ed, code belongs to the community.

EDIT: IANAL and this is all if I understand it correctly.
Logged
Pvt_Ryan
Master Jeweller
******
Posts: 422



WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2007, 10:52:36 pm »

Those both sound off. I'm pretty sure the first part only applies to the LGPL, and that's the whole point of the GPL. If you look at the FAQ posted, it very much depends on how the plugin is called, but I think if it calls (ie uses) any GPL'ed functions, then the plugin itself must be under the GPL.
Second, I'm quite sure you can't change the license of GPL'ed code no matter who you are. I think the developer might be able to add a license but the GPL has to stay on all modified and original code, because after being GPL'ed, code belongs to the community.

EDIT: IANAL and this is all if I understand it correctly.

The author of a section of code retains the copyright of that section of code and a licence change of that section cannot be done without that authors expressed permission, (hence the possible problem of converting the linux kernel to gpl 3)
The work around to this is that all submissions transfer their copyright to 1 person who decides the licence to be used, and that person is bound by the community.

As to plugins. The GPL allows for dynamic linking to code irrc but not static, (with some special exceptions (gtk?? i think) ). Otherwise noone could ever provide a propitory driver for linux (like nvidia do) without breaching the GPL.
Logged
Szandor
Senior Miner
***
Posts: 92



« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2007, 02:52:46 pm »

I would say that while it's all good that we're discussing how to interpret different licenses, we should also discuss what we want from a license and make our decision based on that. From what I gather, people in here want a license that:

Enables anyone to use, modify and compile the sourcecode.
There's a vast sea of licenses that do this, so it shouldn't really be a problem.

Makes sure that proper credit is given where due.
I don't really know what's customary here. If five people contribute to a code that is later modified so that the code of person number five is not used, is that person still credited? I suppose that to some extent this is a question of proper commenting and documentation.

Allows for proprietory licenses for components that is not a part of the original program code.
Actually, I don't think it's practical to do it any other way, no matter if we look at plugins as extentions of the original code or not. I would suggest that the parts of a plugin using EE code must be released under our license, but that everything else may have a proprietory license.

I had other things to say as well, but they kinda disappeared in a cloud of Metroid-surfing and game-music-listening...
Logged

"Cleverly disguised as an original signature..."
Pvt_Ryan
Master Jeweller
******
Posts: 422



WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2007, 03:03:21 pm »

Makes sure that proper credit is given where due.
I don't really know what's customary here. If five people contribute to a code that is later modified so that the code of person number five is not used, is that person still credited? I suppose that to some extent this is a question of proper commenting and documentation.

Just credit people on a release / bug basis and keep ALL credits out of the code so that noone "owns" the code

I have been doing this for CE and just crediting people in the bug tracker / forum posts. As I do believe they deserve credit but I dont believe that they should eat up whitespace or have ownership over the code as the code belongs to everyone once it has been committed.

Allows for proprietory licenses for components that is not a part of the original program code.
Actually, I don't think it's practical to do it any other way, no matter if we look at plugins as extentions of the original code or not. I would suggest that the parts of a plugin using EE code must be released under our license, but that everything else may have a proprietory license.

We could for eg use the GPL and then add a special exception to it.

You are allowed to add your own conditions to the code, however equally people receiving the code are allowed to remove those conditions and not provide them to others.

I think we should just add a conition that states that you can dynamically Link against our binaries but not statically.

So Joe Bloggs makes a plugin A if they need to access our libs they can do so dynamically, our "plugin manager" loads pluign A (it is not a standalone application) so all the libs can be called from the plugin anyhow.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 03:05:07 pm by Pvt_Ryan » Logged
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2007, 12:17:11 am »

That's fine. But keep in mind that if we add an exception to the GPL, we can't still call it GPL.
Logged
Pvt_Ryan
Master Jeweller
******
Posts: 422



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 10, 2007, 09:50:03 am »

actually we can.

Quote
You are allowed to add your own conditions to the code, however equally people receiving the code are allowed to remove those conditions and not provide them to others.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.147 seconds with 20 queries.