Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license
The main sentence I'm pointing is: *You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License. * Also about PS4: - *WebKit *- http://doc.dl.playstation.net/doc/ps4-oss/webkit.html - *Cairo *- http://doc.dl.playstation.net/doc/ps4-oss/cairo.htm - *Mono VM* - http://doc.dl.playstation.net/doc/ps4-oss/mono_vm.html - *FFmpeg *- http://doc.dl.playstation.net/doc/ps4-oss/ffmpeg.html *LGPL and FFmpeg FAQ* - https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html states: 1. Compile FFmpeg *without* "--enable-gpl" and *without* "--enable-nonfree". 2. Use dynamic linking (on windows, this means linking to dlls) for linking with FFmpeg libraries. 3. Distribute the source code of FFmpeg, no matter if you modified it or not. 4. Make sure the source code corresponds exactly to the library binaries you are distributing. 5. Run the command "git diff > changes.diff" in the root directory of the FFmpeg source code to create a file with only the changes. 6. Explain how you compiled FFmpeg, for example the configure line, in a text file added to the root directory of the source code. 7. Use tarball or a zip file for distributing the source code. 8. Host the FFmpeg source code on the same webserver as the binary you are distributing. 9. Add "This software uses code of http://ffmpeg.org>FFmpeg licensed under the http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html>LGPLv2.1 and its source can be downloaded here" to every page in your website where there is a download link to your application. 10. Mention "This software uses libraries from the FFmpeg project under the LGPLv2.1" in your program "about box". 11. Mention in your EULA that your program uses FFmpeg under the LGPLv2.1. 12. If your EULA claims ownership over the code, you have to *explicitly* mention that you do not own FFmpeg, and where the relevant owners can be found. 13. Remove any prohibition of reverse engineering from your EULA. 14. Apply the same changes to all translations of your EULA. 15. Do not misspell FFmpeg (two capitals F and lowercase "mpeg"). 16. Do not rename FFmpeg dlls to some obfuscated name, but adding a suffix or prefix is fine (renaming "avcodec.dll" to "MyProgDec.dll" is not fine, but to "avcodec-MyProg.dll" is). 17. Go through all the items again for any LGPL external library you compiled into FFmpeg (for example LAME). 18. Make sure your program is not using any GPL libraries (notably libx264). And here is what *Microsoft Application Provider Agreement* which include XBox states: 5) *APP REQUIREMENTS.* Each App you submit to Microsoft for distribution through the Store must meet the following requirements: d. *FOSS Software.* If your App includes FOSS, (i) you are responsible for compliance with all applicable FOSS license terms, including any source code availability requirements, and (ii) it must not cause any non-FOSS Microsoft software to become subject to the terms of any FOSS license. *EA WebKit*: http://gpl.ea.com/eawebkit.html On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:04 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) < pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote: > On 07/12/2016 04:28 PM, Aleksandr Palamar wrote: > > Yes, of course those platforms have DRM. But GLib, GObject and GIO are > > available under LGPL 2.1, which states: > > > > *10.* Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the > > Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original > > licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library subject to > > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions > on > > the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not > > responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License. > > > > I suppose it is still you who violates the license, but suppose it is > Sony/Microsoft because they redistribute your software on their store. > Then Sony/Microsoft would most certainly not want to be liable and > remove your software just like Apple does now. > > (I’m not sure if there really is such DRM, but I suspect it.) > > ___ vala-list mailing list vala-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license
On 07/12/2016 04:28 PM, Aleksandr Palamar wrote: > Yes, of course those platforms have DRM. But GLib, GObject and GIO are > available under LGPL 2.1, which states: > > *10.* Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the > Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original > licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library subject to > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on > the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not > responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License. > I suppose it is still you who violates the license, but suppose it is Sony/Microsoft because they redistribute your software on their store. Then Sony/Microsoft would most certainly not want to be liable and remove your software just like Apple does now. (I’m not sure if there really is such DRM, but I suspect it.) ___ vala-list mailing list vala-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license
Yes, of course those platforms have DRM. But GLib, GObject and GIO are available under LGPL 2.1, which states: *10.* Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:25 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) < pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote: > Does XBox One / PS4 have DRM that prevents relinking? Even a translation > layer may not work. I’m doubtful GLib is compatible with PS4. Please > note that it is *not* compatible with Apple app stores. Asking the FSF > may indeed be a good idea. > ___ > vala-list mailing list > vala-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list > ___ vala-list mailing list vala-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license
Does XBox One / PS4 have DRM that prevents relinking? Even a translation layer may not work. I’m doubtful GLib is compatible with PS4. Please note that it is *not* compatible with Apple app stores. Asking the FSF may indeed be a good idea. ___ vala-list mailing list vala-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license
I suspect that Jens talks about creating a "translation layer" that offers to the unmodified GLib all the system calls that it expects, like "fopen, printf" and so on. El 11/07/16 a las 17:42, Aleksandr Palamar escribió: > Jens, do you mean something like linking GLib to your ownn closed source > black box library with open API that is using specific Sony/Microsoft API > inside without revealing those secret internal things to the public? > On Jul 11, 2016 5:50 PM, "Jens Georg" wrote: > > Yes. Obviously the two licenses are not compatible then. The only way out > there > would be a compatibility layer that translates those runtimes into something > GLib can live with. > > > Even if that would violate licence from Sony and Microsoft? Obviously, >> sharing that code with someone who already has license from them to >> use their API is not a problem at all. But sharing that code with >> those who don't have such license will put me into trouble with that >> companies, but even if people will have those sources - they are >> useless without previous agreement with Sony/Microsoft and their SDK. >> That's the one of the moments that kind of preventing me to look into >> Vala more seriously in view of professional game development. I never >> know where it will end. The thing is - I have bunch of old code that I >> may to do some refactoring - go from old C code into C++ with bunch of >> own new and old bicycles or just went with Vala step by step, maybe >> even ending with helping community in places where I may be useful. >> But even how much I don't like C++ as the language, at least I know I >> won't have any license headache later. Vala looks way better in >> comparison, but the license of it's core runtime... That was the whole >> point of the subject. >> >> On Jul 11, 2016 5:25 PM, "Jens Georg" wrote: >> >> But If I would need to patch GLib to work on PS4 or XBONE? I doubt that those platforms will allow me to share usage of their internal API. Can I keep those patch closed and share them only with people who has licenses for PS4 and XONE (you aren't able to put that patch in anyway if you are just standard customer and user of the console and not the developer) so they would able to use that new code as well, but not with others, because that may violate license of console platforms. >>> No. Because you're patching (L)GPL code you would have to grant >>> access to the modified sources >>> ___ >>> vala-list mailing list >>> vala-list@gnome.org >>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list >>> > ___ > vala-list mailing list > vala-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list > -- Nos leemos RASTER(Linux user #228804) ras...@rastersoft.com http://www.rastersoft.com ___ vala-list mailing list vala-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license
Mmmm... that's a tricky question: you only need to grant access to the modified sources to the people to whom you distributed the binaries. This is: if you create a game with a modified GLIB library, and you sell that binary game only to me, you must grant access to the modified sources only to me, but not to other people, so, IN THEORY, as long as I have a license from Sony or Microsoft, you won't be breaking your license. The problem is that the LGPL allows me to redistribute the code freely, but since it has code under other license, it would forbide me to re-redistribute it to people without that license from Sony or Microsoft... So I'm not sure. I recomend you to ask to the FSF. El 11/07/16 a las 16:25, Jens Georg escribió: > >> But If I would need to patch GLib to work on PS4 or XBONE? I doubt that >> those platforms will allow me to share usage of their internal API. >> Can I >> keep those patch closed and share them only with people who has licenses >> for PS4 and XONE (you aren't able to put that patch in anyway if you are >> just standard customer and user of the console and not the developer) so >> they would able to use that new code as well, but not with others, >> because >> that may violate license of console platforms. > > No. Because you're patching (L)GPL code you would have to grant access > to the modified sources > ___ > vala-list mailing list > vala-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list > -- Nos leemos RASTER(Linux user #228804) ras...@rastersoft.com http://www.rastersoft.com ___ vala-list mailing list vala-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list