Hi Mads,
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Mads Kiilerich <m...@kiilerich.com> wrote:
> On 02/07/2011 07:12 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote:
> > Hi FreeRDP developers,
> >
> > It has been in our plans for a while now to change the current licensing
> > of FreeRDP to something more permissive. We are currently using GPLv2
> > for everything, which is not necessarily a good thing, especially when
> > it comes to the libraries. LGPL could be a choice, but I am not
> convinced.
> >
> > I looked at the various popular permissive software licenses and one
> > that stood out was the Apache License 2.0:
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
> >
> > The Apache Software Foundation is quite big and is also quite active.
> > There is a good amount of good open source projects using the license.
> > Also, it is a license that Google particularly likes for its own open
> > source software. It is compatible with a lot of licenses, including
> > GPLv3. One small problem that can be worked around though with ASL is
> > that it is not compatible with GPLv2. This means that anything under
> > GPLv2 that would use FreeRDP librairies under ASL would need to upgrade
> > to GPLv3. It's a bit annoying, but not too bad, since there aren't that
> > many projects that would be affected by such a change. Besides our UIs
> > (if we keep them GPL'ed), Remmina would be affected, but I asked Vic and
> > he seems open to the idea.
> >
> > The Apache Software License would increase our compatibility with crypto
> > libraries which often have compatibility problems with GPL. Also, if we
> > have our librairies in ASL, we would allow non-GPL versions of FreeRDP
> > to be made for potential distribution in GPL-unfriendly environments
> > such as Apple's App Store. Personally, I think it's just sad that google
> > applications like VLC have been removed from the App Store because
> > developers themselves made a complaint. People have strong disagreements
> > in what to do in such cases, but the end result is still a desolating
> > mess and I'd rather clear such potential issues before they happens. I'm
> > not saying we're about to get into such issues any time soon, but since
> > a license change doesn't happen very often we might as well resolve this
> > issue now.
> >
> > Another reason for switching to a permissive license would be to make
> > FreeRDP more attractive for people with commercial interests. We already
> > have companies using the software in thin clients, and it's ok this way,
> > but I'd rather get rid of the GPL chilling effect to get more people
> > involved. Also, we can't ignore the fact that we're providing an open
> > source implementation of a Microsoft specification, and that Microsoft
> > owns the patents on it but promises not to sue people that use it. In my
> > mind, that pretty much makes a lot of the extra protection from the GPL
> > worth not that much after all.
> >
> > I would like to make this license change for FreeRDP 0.9, if possible. I
> > went quickly over the names in the headers of the source code, there
> > isn't that much left from rdesktop, so most people that need to be ask
> > for their consent should be on freerdp-devel. Besides Vic, I have also
> > talked with Jay, and he is also open to the idea. To repeat what I told
> > him: "A free software license should help it grow, not stand in its way".
> >
> > What is your opinion on this? Are there any strong disagreements, or
> > suggestions?
>
> I agree that the license should be changed. "At least" we should follow
> rdesktop to GPLv2+ and thus be GPLv3 compatible. That would allow us to
> continue to share code with rdesktop (if we should want to), and
> assuming they did their relicensing correctly there can't be any legal
> problems there. We can just go ahead and do it.
>
We could go GPLv3 right now without asking them, since the GPL itself allows
an upgrade of the license to a later version within the license itself, but
that's a special case.
>
> Personally I as a minor contributor is fine with relicensing my
> contributions under other open source licenses. FWIW I would prefer a
> license that allowed integration in non-GPL projects but required all
> changes to FreeRDP code itself to be given back to open source. I guess
> that would mean LGPL.
>
Yes... LGPL allows people to use the library without the viral effect, but
code within the library suffers from the same viral effect as the GPL. I
want to get rid of the chilling effect.
>
> However, IANAL, but I am convinced that we can't legally change the
> license to anything but GPL without getting explicit permission from
> everybody who has ever contributed to rdesktop or FreeRDP. People own
> the copyright to their changes even if they not are listed as copyright
> holders in the file. GPL is viral and also applies to derived products,
> so even original code that we have written in a GPL context might be
> tied to the GPL license. Changing every line manually or rewriting the
> code piece by piece doesn't necessarily prevent it from being derived code.
>
> We will also need to ask people from rdesktop. I think Jay has compiled a
list of contributors from rdesktop that we should contact. Worst case
scenario is that we need to rewrite the code from people who disagree with a
license change.
> I do not think we in good faith just can change to a non GPL license. I
> would recommend consulting a lawyer before doing that - perhaps by
> contacting Software Freedom Law Center or Software Freedom Conservancy.
>
We could ask for advice just to be sure, yeah.
>
> Some less relevant comments/opinions:
>
> OpenSSL is AFAIK the only common crypto library that is incompatible
> with GPL. Closed source modifications to use other crypto libraries (no
> matter what their license is) is obviously also a problem - just like
> all other unpublished modifications.
>
> GPL rdesktop code is already on app store. FWIW.
>
GPL in the app store is in the "gray zone" right now. Apple will accept
them, but if someone files a complaint such as in the case of VLC, Apple
will simply remove the app. Since "app stores" are growing in popularity, I
would expect such cases to grow in number with the years. Gray zones are
never good, they leave a false sense of security but anytime someone might
just pop up and claim it's a violation of the license. Unfortunately, the
people who need to address licensing issues in their "app store" often just
remove the infringing application.
>
> Apache 2 code can't be relicensed to GPL, but Apache 2 and GPLv3 are
> link compatible (and Apache also considers it GPLv2 compatible). So even
> if the FreeRDP license was Apache 2 there wouldn't be any need for dual
> licensing.
>
Apache 2 is officially GPLv3 compatible:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
The compatibility is one way, meaning that if you distribute code partially
under GPLv3 and ASL, then as a whole it is considered GPLv3. In order to get
the code under ASL, you'd need to get the librairies under ASL alone,
without GPLv3 code.
>
> /Mads
> not a lawyer
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The modern datacenter depends on network connectivity to access resources
> and provide services. The best practices for maximizing a physical server's
> connectivity to a physical network are well understood - see how these
> rules translate into the virtual world?
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnlfb
> _______________________________________________
> Freerdp-devel mailing list
> Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modern datacenter depends on network connectivity to access resources
and provide services. The best practices for maximizing a physical server's
connectivity to a physical network are well understood - see how these
rules translate into the virtual world?
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnlfb
_______________________________________________
Freerdp-devel mailing list
Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
