Hi RMS, I wasn't a part of the conversation you are quoting here, but I will bite...
Under the heading "Product" from the IUP online documentation at https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/prod.html, it says "IUP is free software, [it] can be used for public and commercial applications". Under the heading "Tecgraf Library License" from the IUP online documentation at https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/copyright.html, it says "The Tecgraf products under this license are: IUP, CD and IM. All the products under this license are free software: they can be used for both academic and commercial purposes at absolutely no cost. There are no paperwork, no royalties, no GNU-like "copyleft" restrictions, either. Just download and use it. They are licensed under the terms of the MIT license reproduced below, and so are compatible with GPL and also qualifies as Open Source software. They are not in the public domain, PUC-Rio keeps their copyright." Under the heading or "Credits" from the IUP online documentation at https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/en/prod.html#creditos, it makes no mention of the great many GNU licensed products BUNDLED with the IUP product. Then Tysen Moore at sent out an email at https://sourceforge.net/p/iup/mailman/message/37024247/, that said his company's lawyers found one PdfLib license and quite a few GPL-licensed products bundled within the IUP product that could make his product incompatible with his apparently commercial product that isn't going to be opened source. That got my attention because I don't like surprises, so then Tysen and I both asked Mr Scuri why no mention of this was made in either the licensing section or in the credit section, he basically said you had to go find it yourself somewhere within the source code. Somewhere. Trust me. These GPL and PdfLib products are not separate products from IUP, they are documented as being a part of the IUP framework. In other words, the WHOLE TRUTH is, only a part of the IUP bundled-framework can be used for public commercial applications, unless you want to open source your application, but they fail to tell you which parts are "completely free" and which are not. You are just supposed to figure that out on your own. That doesn't sound suspicious at all, does it? So the question (maybe) really is, shouldn't the copyright for all products you bundle with your developer's application be mentioned in your copyright or credit section of your public documentation? When a license says "you must include the original copyright and license", where should that copyright be prominently displayed? Every company I know of puts ALL the copyrights in one place, not scattered throughout something you may or may not read, like source code that isn't required reading or an obvious place to document your (many) copyrights. So far, this is how many products I had no idea from the IUP documentation cannot be used for public or commercial applications (unless you open source your public or commercial application): FFTW MiniLZO Tuio PdfLib FGTL Freetype Zlib Scintilla WinDrawLib Let me know if I should escalate this issue to someone else if this is not something you want to deal with because I don't want to waste your time or mine. Thank you in advance, Andres On 2020-06-02 at 9:32 PM, Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org> wrote: >[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] >[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] >[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > We are using the IUP framework to create a commercial application. > >I don't know anything about IUP except what you've told me. IUP is >not the name of any GNU package; it must have been developed by >others, not us. > > > We are using the IUP framework to create a commercial application. The > > decision to use this framework rested upon the statement; "IUP is free > > software, can be used for public and commercial applications". Unfortunately, > > our license compliance team has flagged some issues within IUP. It would > > appear that the claim "free" for "commercial applications" may not be entirely > > accurate. > >I suspect a misunderstanding here. "Commercial" is not the same as "nonfree". >See https://gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html. > >Perhaps they should clarify their statement about the matter. They >should say "can be used for noncommercian or commercial applications >provided their licenses are compatible with the licenses of the >libraries used." > > >You seem to understand the requirements of the two licenses you mentioned. > > > The licenses that are incompatible with out application include: > > - GPLv2 code which should not be linked with proprietary code > >Correct. However, it can be used in commercial programs >provided those programs are free/libre. > >Apparently your program is not free/libre. That is a shame. > > > - LGPLv3 code can be linked dynamically with proprietary code. It should be > > possible for the user to change the LGPLv3 library. > >Correct. > > >-- >Dr Richard Stallman >Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) >Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) >Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) _______________________________________________ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
