Patch Licensing Terms

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Patch Licensing Terms

Paige DePol
I am working on a website to document and distribute my patch collection,
some of which are small "power patches", while others are considerably larger.

I want to use the Creative Commons[1] licensing scheme but wonder about the
"Share Alike" provision. According to the licensing notice in lua.h it seems
Lua gives the user full rights to the software as long as attribution to the
original authors is given in derivative works. The Lua license makes no
stipulations about having to open-source any modified versions of the source.

As some of you know, I have been working on a custom variant of Lua, though
due to family illness and other reasons I just haven't had the time over the
past few years to dedicate time to the project. Finally, it looks like 2018
may be the year I can actually get some time to work on this project, when
I do release the language I need to decide between the Creative Commons
Attribution Only license, or the Share Alike version.

I do not have a lot of experience with open source licensing, most of the
work I have done in my life has been closed source in nature, or where
open source was used the lawyers figured out the details! ;)

I guess I am just looking for opinions between the Attribution Only vs
the Share Alike provisions of the Creative Commons Open Source License.

~Paige

PS: Sorry if this posting is off-topic, I thought it would be okay as the
    subject relates to Lua licensing in general and patches specifically.

[1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Jonathan Goble
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:37 PM Paige DePol <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am working on a website to document and distribute my patch collection,
some of which are small "power patches", while others are considerably larger.

I want to use the Creative Commons[1] licensing scheme but wonder about the
"Share Alike" provision. According to the licensing notice in lua.h it seems
Lua gives the user full rights to the software as long as attribution to the
original authors is given in derivative works. The Lua license makes no
stipulations about having to open-source any modified versions of the source. 

Generally speaking, Creative Commons's own FAQ explicitly recommends against using their license for software, for multiple reasons. [2] That answer further states that "Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate CC-licensed work with other free software." IANAL, so I would interpret that on the safe side to mean that no CC license is fully compatible with the MIT license (what Lua uses).

[1] (quoted footnote)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Paige DePol
Jonathan Goble <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:37 PM Paige DePol <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I am working on a website to document and distribute my patch collection,
> some of which are small "power patches", while others are considerably larger.
>
> I want to use the Creative Commons[1] licensing scheme but wonder about the
> "Share Alike" provision. According to the licensing notice in lua.h it seems
> Lua gives the user full rights to the software as long as attribution to the
> original authors is given in derivative works. The Lua license makes no
> stipulations about having to open-source any modified versions of the source.
>
> Generally speaking, Creative Commons's own FAQ explicitly recommends
> against using their license for software, for multiple reasons. [2] That
> answer further states that "Additionally, our licenses are currently not
> compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to
> integrate CC-licensed work with other free software." IANAL, so I would
> interpret that on the safe side to mean that no CC license is fully
> compatible with the MIT license (what Lua uses).
>
> [1] (quoted footnote)
> [2] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

Well, darn... how the heck did I miss that? Thank you very much for pointing
this out to me, it is very appreciated! :)

I think I will just go with the MIT license Lua uses then. Upon further
reflection I don't know if I want to force people to have to release their
changes under a specific license just because they used some of my code.
Oh... wait, is this the issue people were having years ago with the changes
to the GPL? The "poison pill" or whatever that Microsoft was calling it?

If people are using my code than I am happy enough with attribution, though
I will still hope that they would release and share their changes.. but
I won't force them to via a license.

Thanks again for you feedback, I really don't know how I missed that caveat,
but at least now I know and won't create an incompatible licensing scheme!

~Paige


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Jonathan Goble
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 8:21 PM Paige DePol <[hidden email]> wrote:
Jonathan Goble <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:37 PM Paige DePol <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I am working on a website to document and distribute my patch collection,
> some of which are small "power patches", while others are considerably larger.
>
> I want to use the Creative Commons[1] licensing scheme but wonder about the
> "Share Alike" provision. According to the licensing notice in lua.h it seems
> Lua gives the user full rights to the software as long as attribution to the
> original authors is given in derivative works. The Lua license makes no
> stipulations about having to open-source any modified versions of the source.
>
> Generally speaking, Creative Commons's own FAQ explicitly recommends
> against using their license for software, for multiple reasons. [2] That
> answer further states that "Additionally, our licenses are currently not
> compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to
> integrate CC-licensed work with other free software." IANAL, so I would
> interpret that on the safe side to mean that no CC license is fully
> compatible with the MIT license (what Lua uses).
>
> [1] (quoted footnote)
> [2] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

Well, darn... how the heck did I miss that? Thank you very much for pointing
this out to me, it is very appreciated! :)

I think I will just go with the MIT license Lua uses then. Upon further
reflection I don't know if I want to force people to have to release their
changes under a specific license just because they used some of my code.
Oh... wait, is this the issue people were having years ago with the changes
to the GPL? The "poison pill" or whatever that Microsoft was calling it?

If people are using my code than I am happy enough with attribution, though
I will still hope that they would release and share their changes.. but
I won't force them to via a license.

Thanks again for you feedback, I really don't know how I missed that caveat,
but at least now I know and won't create an incompatible licensing scheme!

~Paige

No problem. Like I said, IANAL, but I've dealt with CC licenses enough back in my Wikipedia-editing days that I remembered that passage in the FAQ. Glad I could help. :)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Hugo Musso Gualandi
In reply to this post by Paige DePol
> I want to use the Creative Commons[1] licensing scheme but wonder about
> the "Share Alike" provision.

The keyword you are looking for is "copyleft"[1][2]. The "Share Alike"
name is unique to the Creative Common licenses.

As Jonathan pointed out in another reply, the Creative Commons licenses
are not suitable for source code. A better copyleft license for source
code would be the GNU GPL.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
[2] https://copyleft.org/

> The Lua license makes no stipulations about having to open-source any
> modified versions of the source.

Yes. These non-copyleft open-source licenses are known as "permissive"
licenses.

> when I do release the language I need to decide between the
> Creative Commons Attribution Only license, or the Share Alike version.

If you want, you are allowed to create a GPL-licensed derived work that is
based on a MIT-licensed original work, as long as you continue to respect
the terms of the original license. However, there are some downsides to
changing the license like this.

The first one is that some people use Lua in a context that is
incompatible with a copyleft license and they won't be able to use your
copylefted derived language implementation. You will need to balance your
commitment to copyleft with your desire for wider adoption.

Another issue is that the Lua authors won't be able to use any of the
GPL-licensed patches in the main Lua project, unless you re-release them
under the more permissive MIT license. For Lua this is not a big issue
because its authors don't tend to directly apply "power patches" from the
community anyway but this barrier for collaboration can be a big pain
point in other open source projects.

> I guess I am just looking for opinions between the Attribution Only vs
> the Share Alike provisions of the Creative Commons Open Source License.

Copyleft vs non-copyleft discussions go way back in the open-source
community and is the sort of thing that can spawn long threads full of
people talking past each other. Not that I would expect this in this
mailing list though :)

-- Hugo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Paige DePol
[hidden email] wrote:

>> I want to use the Creative Commons[1] licensing scheme but wonder about
>> the "Share Alike" provision.
>
> The keyword you are looking for is "copyleft"[1][2]. The "Share Alike"
> name is unique to the Creative Common licenses.

Ah yes, I had heard of that term before... I just didn't know exactly what it
meant, but upon further reading I now do. The realm of open-source licensing
is just not something I have looked into in much detail so I appreciate your
feedback on the matter! :)


> As Jonathan pointed out in another reply, the Creative Commons licenses
> are not suitable for source code. A better copyleft license for source
> code would be the GNU GPL.
>
> If you want, you are allowed to create a GPL-licensed derived work that is
> based on a MIT-licensed original work, as long as you continue to respect
> the terms of the original license. However, there are some downsides to
> changing the license like this.
>
> The first one is that some people use Lua in a context that is
> incompatible with a copyleft license and they won't be able to use your
> copylefted derived language implementation. You will need to balance your
> commitment to copyleft with your desire for wider adoption.
>
> Another issue is that the Lua authors won't be able to use any of the
> GPL-licensed patches in the main Lua project, unless you re-release them
> under the more permissive MIT license. For Lua this is not a big issue
> because its authors don't tend to directly apply "power patches" from the
> community anyway but this barrier for collaboration can be a big pain
> point in other open source projects.

These are very valid points. I personally love open source software and
would hope that everyone would release any changes made to the original
source they obtained. However, as you rightly point out, this is not always
a possible situation. I think I would prefer to keep my patches and language
derivative as compatible with the original Lua license as possible.


>> I guess I am just looking for opinions between the Attribution Only vs
>> the Share Alike provisions of the Creative Commons Open Source License.
>
> Copyleft vs non-copyleft discussions go way back in the open-source
> community and is the sort of thing that can spawn long threads full of
> people talking past each other. Not that I would expect this in this
> mailing list though :)

It does seem that people take licensing of open source as seriously as
any ideology... but I want to avoid those types of conversations whenever
possible! Thank you for your reply, you have provided some very salient
points and have helped me to make a decision.

At this time I will simply propagate the Lua MIT license to my own works
as they pertain to both my patches for vanilla Lua and for my derivative
language. This way people can use the patches and/or the language as they
see fit and maybe someday I will see an attribution somewhere! :)

~Paige


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Sean Conner
In reply to this post by Paige DePol
It was thus said that the Great Paige DePol once stated:
>
> I think I will just go with the MIT license Lua uses then. Upon further
> reflection I don't know if I want to force people to have to release their
> changes under a specific license just because they used some of my code.
> Oh... wait, is this the issue people were having years ago with the changes
> to the GPL? The "poison pill" or whatever that Microsoft was calling it?

  Not quite.  The GPLv2 states that you must, for up to three years, supply
the source code to your program to anyone who has obtained a binary version
of your program (either by buying a copy from you, or if you give them a
copy) if they ask for it.  They then can modify the program to suit their
needs, and if *they* make their version available (either for sale or giving
it away), they too, are bound to make their changes available to their
users.

  But this doesn't prevent a company from taking the software and burning it
into firmware.  Yes, they have to make the source code available to their
customers who ask, but they don't have to make a way for the customer to
reload the device with a modified firmware.  This is the so
called-TIVOisation loophole.

  The GPLv3 fixes this loophole, thus a user of your code can not only
obtain the source code, but can modify it and reflash the firmware of a
device to run the modified code.  Not many companies like this.

  I'm still not sure how the GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2 (they are
incompatiable, but I still don't understand the arguments).

> If people are using my code than I am happy enough with attribution, though
> I will still hope that they would release and share their changes.. but
> I won't force them to via a license.

  Just keep in mind that the BSD/MIT licenses allow a company like Intel to
use your code in their top-secret, can-read-all-memory, maybe-backdoored-
maybe-not and can't-disable-it Management Engine, present in all Intel chips
since 2008 [1][2] (I'm just saying ... sorry if this is too political for
this list).

  -spc

[1] Making Minux the most used operating system these days, as it's
        being used to run the Intel Managmenet Engine.

[2] Good news everybody!
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology#Known_vulnerabilities_and_exploits

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Paige DePol
Sean Conner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It was thus said that the Great Paige DePol once stated:
>> I think I will just go with the MIT license Lua uses then. Upon further
>> reflection I don't know if I want to force people to have to release their
>> changes under a specific license just because they used some of my code.
>> Oh... wait, is this the issue people were having years ago with the changes
>> to the GPL? The "poison pill" or whatever that Microsoft was calling it?
>
>  Not quite.  The GPLv2 states that you must, for up to three years, supply
> the source code to your program to anyone who has obtained a binary version
> of your program (either by buying a copy from you, or if you give them a
> copy) if they ask for it.  They then can modify the program to suit their
> needs, and if *they* make their version available (either for sale or giving
> it away), they too, are bound to make their changes available to their
> users.

Okay, I didn't know about the 3-year limitation on the GPLv2, good to know.
So, after three years the source doesn't need to be provided on demand?

I read some pages on Richard Stallman's website... quite an interesting
person I must say. I can't say I disagree with him, but I don't know that I
necessarily agree with everything he believes either. Was some interesting
reading though!


>  But this doesn't prevent a company from taking the software and burning it
> into firmware.  Yes, they have to make the source code available to their
> customers who ask, but they don't have to make a way for the customer to
> reload the device with a modified firmware.  This is the so
> called-TIVOisation loophole.

Right, so you can have the source, but essentially it is useless, other than
to look at, as it needs to be burned into firmware to use. Viewing the source
can be good to get eyeballs looking at the source for security purposes, but
not good if a bug is found and the vendor has to be relied on for an update.


>  The GPLv3 fixes this loophole, thus a user of your code can not only
> obtain the source code, but can modify it and reflash the firmware of a
> device to run the modified code.  Not many companies like this.

Ah. Well, if that is the case then yes... I can see why some companies
may not like that and would stick with the GPLv2 license.


>  I'm still not sure how the GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2 (they are
> incompatiable, but I still don't understand the arguments).

I have been doing some reading myself, and learning a fair bit... like, for
example, "free software" and "open source" aren't really the same thing!
It seems what has a lot of people upset about the GPLv3 is the addition of
language specific to patents, along with DRM specific clauses. There were
a whole lot of flame wars about the changes... and probably still are!  


>> If people are using my code than I am happy enough with attribution, though
>> I will still hope that they would release and share their changes.. but
>> I won't force them to via a license.
>
>  Just keep in mind that the BSD/MIT licenses allow a company like Intel to
> use your code in their top-secret, can-read-all-memory, maybe-backdoored-
> maybe-not and can't-disable-it Management Engine, present in all Intel chips
> since 2008 [1][2] (I'm just saying ... sorry if this is too political for
> this list).

Maybe I'll create my own MIT-style license, and add one extra clause:

Don't use the source code to be evil!

I have decided that for this project, my patches for vanilla Lua and the
derivative language I am creating, I will follow in Lua's footsteps in
regards to the license used. While I would like people to release any
changes they make back to the community I don't want to force the issue
and would like to maintain license compatibility with Lua code.

Another benefit is that the license is dead simple... you can use my
code, just give me credit somewhere. Given the complex nature of a lot
of the other licenses, there is something to be said for simplicity!

As for the Intel Management Engine... I don't even know where to start,
but this list probably isn't the best place for that discussion as I am
pretty sure it probably doesn't run Lua. Though, even if it did I don't
think they'd tell us! ;)

~Paige


> [2] Good news everybody!

Anyone else hear that in Professor Farnsworth's voice? :D
http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Hubert_J._Farnsworth


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Daurnimator
On 26 November 2017 at 16:39, Paige DePol <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Maybe I'll create my own MIT-style license, and add one extra clause:
>
> Don't use the source code to be evil!


Douglas crockford did something similar for his software (which includes JSON)
But that makes it incompatible with other licenses.

Among others, this got some IBM lawyers annoyed, who now have
permission to use the code for evil.

Read more at https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Paige DePol
Daurnimator <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 26 November 2017 at 16:39, Paige DePol <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Maybe I'll create my own MIT-style license, and add one extra clause:
>>
>> Don't use the source code to be evil!
>
> Douglas crockford did something similar for his software (which includes JSON)
> But that makes it incompatible with other licenses.
>
> Among others, this got some IBM lawyers annoyed, who now have
> permission to use the code for evil.
>
> Read more at https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil

I find it hilarious that someone actually did that... I mean, I was joking
and would never actually add that to my license.

Interestingly, if he changed the license to say:

The Software /should/ be used for Good, not Evil.

then all licensing issues would be moot as it would be a suggestion and
not a requirement of the license. However, he seems pretty adamant about
not changing the license, even though it is causing a number of issues
with people wanting to use his software.

Thanks for pointing out this amusing license clause!

~Paige




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Enrico Colombini
In reply to this post by Jonathan Goble
On 26-Nov-17 01:45, Jonathan Goble wrote:

> Generally speaking, Creative Commons's own FAQ explicitly recommends
> against using their license for software, for multiple reasons. [2] That
> answer further states that "Additionally, our licenses are currently not
> compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to
> integrate CC-licensed work with other free software." IANAL, so I would
> interpret that on the safe side to mean that no CC license is fully
> compatible with the MIT license (what Lua uses).
>
> [1] (quoted footnote)
> [2]
> https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

Uh oh... I completely missed that when, years ago, when I published a
couple of works including Lua code under CC-by-sa.

(I guess it's too late do do something about it)

--
   Enrico

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Enrico Colombini
In reply to this post by Paige DePol
On 26-Nov-17 06:39, Paige DePol wrote:
> Maybe I'll create my own MIT-style license, and add one extra clause:
>
> Don't use the source code to be evil!

Now you just have to define "evil" and you're done!
That's a real flame war: it has been going on for thousands of years :-)

--
   Enrico

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

KHMan
In reply to this post by Enrico Colombini
On 11/26/2017 6:48 PM, Enrico Colombini wrote:

> On 26-Nov-17 01:45, Jonathan Goble wrote:
>> Generally speaking, Creative Commons's own FAQ explicitly
>> recommends against using their license for software, for
>> multiple reasons. [2] That answer further states that
>> "Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with
>> the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to
>> integrate CC-licensed work with other free software." IANAL, so
>> I would interpret that on the safe side to mean that no CC
>> license is fully compatible with the MIT license (what Lua uses).
>>
>> [1] (quoted footnote)
>> [2]
>> https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software
>>
>
> Uh oh... I completely missed that when, years ago, when I
> published a couple of works including Lua code under CC-by-sa.
>
> (I guess it's too late do do something about it)

The author can always re-license a work he/she still has copyright
control/rights over. In some places, it is normal to assign the
copyright of a work to someone else (e.g. FSF (GNU) projects,
scientific papers). Even so, some GNU projects do accept very
short patches (especially bugfixes) as obvious, without having to
file FSF paperwork.

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Selangor, Malaysia


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Enrico Colombini
On 26-Nov-17 13:04, KHMan wrote:

>>
>> Uh oh... I completely missed that when, years ago, when I
>> published a couple of works including Lua code under CC-by-sa.
>>
>> (I guess it's too late do do something about it)
>
> The author can always re-license a work he/she still has copyright
> control/rights over. In some places, it is normal to assign the
> copyright of a work to someone else (e.g. FSF (GNU) projects, scientific
> papers). Even so, some GNU projects do accept very short patches
> (especially bugfixes) as obvious, without having to file FSF paperwork.

Yes, but the amount of work (change all files, documentation, drawings,
web pages) would make no sense for old projects that today are seldom
downloaded, not to speak of finding appropriate licenses for the code
and for the other parts.
Unless there are significant problems, I will leave things as they are
and keep this in mind for my next project.

(by the way, I still do not understand why CC-by-sa should not be used
for software, but I am most definitely not a lawyer).

--
   Enrico

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Russell Haley
In reply to this post by Enrico Colombini
It's unfortunate that people now see fit to trivialize that word. 

Russ

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Virgin Mobile network.
  Original Message  
From: Enrico Colombini
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 2:56 AM
To: Lua mailing list
Reply To: Lua mailing list
Subject: Re: Patch Licensing Terms

On 26-Nov-17 06:39, Paige DePol wrote:
> Maybe I'll create my own MIT-style license, and add one extra clause:
>
> Don't use the source code to be evil!

Now you just have to define "evil" and you're done!
That's a real flame war: it has been going on for thousands of years :-)

--
Enrico


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

szbnwer@gmail.com
hi all! :)


thx for the interesting materies, im also interested in the very same
stuffs as these! :)

ive heard that one can double license or relicense their product, but
im not sure if its true or it have any requirements different than
what was at the beginning - so ive interpreted this as i can use gpl
and then give mit for the upstreams for the needed parts, but the
whole would "downgrade" the gpl... and for sure only if ive made it
gpl without include gpl code from any other project

putting together gpl with other (and compatible) stuffs makes the
other stuffs gpl as well but what about (lets say) use luakit (gpl)
write a library that is exclusively used with it but not strictly
related so not calling anything from it but luakit using it and its
kinda related to browsing but could be freestanding... - if its in its
own file then i can simply give it an mit?

what about linux, that is under gpl if im right, and there are apps
with various licenses above it that are calling the kernel? its just a
well separated unit?

sorry if this one is bullshit, but ive heard that one can run a gpl
(or what else?) stuff on bsd but not vice versa, or what is the point
where incompatibility of allowing/declining binary distribution blocks
the road?


and yes, id also like to make an alpha release in a closed circle with
additional licenses, and im also afraid of evil guys out there that
will poison my stuffs with the wrong aims and contents and contexts
and whatever; take away control with money and big teams or just see
how the little important pieces working and simply reimplement them in
an another language and do anything wrong and take away the possible
users and put them on a different platform like win or mac that are
basically wrong cuz the closed source and their licenses and i wont
ever move on those platforms..... much creepy visions and so much
plans that takes the same funds and same path as ive imagined for the
right result...

in this case could i simply delete the additional licences? however
its kinda nothing after one seen the basics, licenses can be bypassed,
shared ideas with accordance and opened beneficial pathways* can
probably do more... *: i mean stuff like not sell or publicate
anything built upon, but can be used for one's own good or for backend
purposes before time for publicity can come...


for the intel me, i could suggest you (and anyone) to search for 'me
cleaner' on github for erasing an possibly neutralizing it, this
supports the most machines if im right; libreboot (completely?
deblobbed replacement, you can find there compatible machines and
shops for preinstalled machines - its not a bad idea, cuz motherboard
can be bricked like a phone during flashing); and coreboot which is
the upstream of libreboot but with blobs and with wiki and a mailing
list, it can be used on a much wider range of computers - most likely
you will find what you want on this journey, id suggest you to do a
research as its a very hardcore topic, and then you may go to the
coreboot mailing list. ('bad usb' is an another good search term to
start research for much interesting stuffs)

i didnt really got your aim, if im right its the question that intel
uefi uses lua or not, but intel forbids revengineering and stuffs,
however core-/libreboot folks probably relaying on that, but cuz the
intel license it can be hard to talk about these, and im following
whats going on there, intel refusing most of the help for them and
there is a deep opposition between them ... additionally they are
helpful as i couldnt learn much deep stuffs from there without that,
but its very hard to follow them, cuz there are dragons all around
there, you will see it :D


thx for the much useful stuff again, just as well as any answer for my
questions, and good luck with the firmware rabbit's hole! :)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Coda Highland
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 7:30 PM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ive heard that one can double license or relicense their product, but
> im not sure if its true or it have any requirements different than
> what was at the beginning - so ive interpreted this as i can use gpl
> and then give mit for the upstreams for the needed parts, but the
> whole would "downgrade" the gpl... and for sure only if ive made it
> gpl without include gpl code from any other project

It sounds for the most part like you understand things correctly, but
to summarize:

If you're the sole author of the code in question, you're permitted to
put whatever the heck license you want on it.

The big catch is that if some parts of the code you created are
derived from other code that you didn't write, then you might still be
beholden to that license. (There's a bit of a flame war surrounding
whether subclassing counts as non-fair-use derivation.) But all of the
parts that you created completely by yourself are still owned by you,
and if you edit out the stuff that you made by modifying other
people's stuff, you can do whatever you want with it.

That said, anyone who received the code under the old license still
has permission to use that code under that license -- unless otherwise
stated, licenses are non-revokable. This doesn't entitle them to use
future releases you may create under the old license (they have to
accept the new license to update) but the old version is still going
to be out there.

So if you make patches to upstream components, the license on the
upstream components is what applies there, since you're modifying the
upstream source. You can put other restrictions on your patch if you
want as long as they don't conflict with the original license, but
this is generally a bad idea because it means that upstream can't
ACCEPT your patch. :P

> putting together gpl with other (and compatible) stuffs makes the
> other stuffs gpl as well but what about (lets say) use luakit (gpl)
> write a library that is exclusively used with it but not strictly
> related so not calling anything from it but luakit using it and its
> kinda related to browsing but could be freestanding... - if its in its
> own file then i can simply give it an mit?

You can, yes. The resulting combined work would be under both the GPL
and the MIT and people distributing it would have to comply with both.
(But since they're compatible the only requirement is that you have to
keep the text of the MIT license attached to it when you distribute
it. This is easy because you just put it in a comment at the top of
the file.)

> what about linux, that is under gpl if im right, and there are apps
> with various licenses above it that are calling the kernel? its just a
> well separated unit?

In theory, you're basically right here. You've gotta watch out because
some system libraries might be GPL and if you use those then you're
GPL too. Fortunately, glibc is LGPL so you can use glibc and still be
non-GPL yourself.

> sorry if this one is bullshit, but ive heard that one can run a gpl
> (or what else?) stuff on bsd but not vice versa, or what is the point
> where incompatibility of allowing/declining binary distribution blocks
> the road?

As the end user, you can run anything you want on anything else you
want. The licensing requirements come into play when you're talking
about redistributing the software.

> and yes, id also like to make an alpha release in a closed circle with
> additional licenses, and im also afraid of evil guys out there that
> will poison my stuffs with the wrong aims and contents and contexts
> and whatever

You have that right as long as you don't distribute something that
incorporates copyleft material. If you really need to use GPL stuff,
you're basically stuck distributing source and saying "build this
yourself, the combined output can't be distributed".

/s/ Adam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Russell Haley
In reply to this post by szbnwer@gmail.com
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 5:30 PM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

> hi all! :)
>
>
> thx for the interesting materies, im also interested in the very same
> stuffs as these! :)
>
> ive heard that one can double license or relicense their product, but
> im not sure if its true or it have any requirements different than
> what was at the beginning - so ive interpreted this as i can use gpl
> and then give mit for the upstreams for the needed parts, but the
> whole would "downgrade" the gpl... and for sure only if ive made it
> gpl without include gpl code from any other project
>
> putting together gpl with other (and compatible) stuffs makes the
> other stuffs gpl as well but what about (lets say) use luakit (gpl)
> write a library that is exclusively used with it but not strictly
> related so not calling anything from it but luakit using it and its
> kinda related to browsing but could be freestanding... - if its in its
> own file then i can simply give it an mit?
>
> what about linux, that is under gpl if im right, and there are apps
> with various licenses above it that are calling the kernel? its just a
> well separated unit?
>
> sorry if this one is bullshit, but ive heard that one can run a gpl
> (or what else?) stuff on bsd but not vice versa, or what is the point
> where incompatibility of allowing/declining binary distribution blocks
> the road?

In terms of kernel code, anyone is free to use BSD licensed code as
long as the include the copyright. Big chunks of BSD code run in many
OSes, including Android. However, GPL code cannot enter a BSD licensed
kernel. Some new Linux kernel modules are now licensed so that they
can work in both GPL kernels, and also link to proprietary drivers.
This allows them to be used in more liberal licensed kernels. The
Direct Rendering Manager is an example of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Rendering_Manager

Some people are still tied in knots about the licensing in ZFS or
DTrace, but that's more of a political stance in my opinion.

Russ

>
> and yes, id also like to make an alpha release in a closed circle with
> additional licenses, and im also afraid of evil guys out there that
> will poison my stuffs with the wrong aims and contents and contexts
> and whatever; take away control with money and big teams or just see
> how the little important pieces working and simply reimplement them in
> an another language and do anything wrong and take away the possible
> users and put them on a different platform like win or mac that are
> basically wrong cuz the closed source and their licenses and i wont
> ever move on those platforms..... much creepy visions and so much
> plans that takes the same funds and same path as ive imagined for the
> right result...
>
> in this case could i simply delete the additional licences? however
> its kinda nothing after one seen the basics, licenses can be bypassed,
> shared ideas with accordance and opened beneficial pathways* can
> probably do more... *: i mean stuff like not sell or publicate
> anything built upon, but can be used for one's own good or for backend
> purposes before time for publicity can come...
>
>
> for the intel me, i could suggest you (and anyone) to search for 'me
> cleaner' on github for erasing an possibly neutralizing it, this
> supports the most machines if im right; libreboot (completely?
> deblobbed replacement, you can find there compatible machines and
> shops for preinstalled machines - its not a bad idea, cuz motherboard
> can be bricked like a phone during flashing); and coreboot which is
> the upstream of libreboot but with blobs and with wiki and a mailing
> list, it can be used on a much wider range of computers - most likely
> you will find what you want on this journey, id suggest you to do a
> research as its a very hardcore topic, and then you may go to the
> coreboot mailing list. ('bad usb' is an another good search term to
> start research for much interesting stuffs)
>
> i didnt really got your aim, if im right its the question that intel
> uefi uses lua or not, but intel forbids revengineering and stuffs,
> however core-/libreboot folks probably relaying on that, but cuz the
> intel license it can be hard to talk about these, and im following
> whats going on there, intel refusing most of the help for them and
> there is a deep opposition between them ... additionally they are
> helpful as i couldnt learn much deep stuffs from there without that,
> but its very hard to follow them, cuz there are dragons all around
> there, you will see it :D
>
>
> thx for the much useful stuff again, just as well as any answer for my
> questions, and good luck with the firmware rabbit's hole! :)
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Paige DePol
Russell Haley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Big chunks of BSD code run in many OSes, including Android.

Don't forget OSX, now once again macOS, which was derived from NeXT so the
core of macOS is essentially BSD. In keeping with the license there are
parts of macOS that Apple does release the source code[1] for... like the
Mach kernel, for example. This has allowed the Hackintosh[2] community to
thrive, much to Apple's chagrin I am sure! ;)

~Paige

[1] https://opensource.apple.com
[2] Computers that run Apple's macOS on non-Apple, but compatible, hardware.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Patch Licensing Terms

Dirk Laurie-2
In reply to this post by Coda Highland
2017-11-27 4:39 GMT+02:00 Coda Highland <[hidden email]>:

> If you're the sole author of the code in question, you're permitted to
> put whatever the heck license you want on it.

Isn't there a license with a name like that?

12