Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license

[Aleksandr Palamar]

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

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

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

[Aleksandr Palamar]

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

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

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

[rastersoft]

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

[rastersoft]

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

Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license

[Jens Georg]

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

Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license

[Jens Georg]

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

Re: [Vala] Vala and GLib license

[Aleksandr Palamar]

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.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Guillaume Poirier-Morency <
guillaumepoiriermore...@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to GNU's site, if you statically link with GLib, you have to
> at least provide users with object files (not necessarily sources) so
> that they can link against any version they like of the library under
> the LGPL.
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic
>
> For the rest, I cannot tell, but I'm pretty sure that LGPL is
> sufficiently permissive.
>
> Le lundi 11 juillet 2016 à 16:29 +0300, Aleksandr Palamar a écrit :
> > Hi, Vala-List users.
> >
> > I'm curious about GLib license (which is the core of Vala runtime),
> > mainly
> > because I'm thinking about using Vala in closed source (or zlib if
> > that
> > would be possible in future) project, which may (or not) be used on
> > different platforms including iOS (which doesn't allow dynamic
> > linkage),
> > PS4 and XBoxOne. Would it require to make application available under
> > LGPL
> > as well or I would able to kept application under any license I like
> > while
> > sharing (if target platform allows it, because I doubt about PS4 and
> > XONE)
> > changes for GLib if there was any. Just don't want to go wrong way
> > and
> > force myself to drain inside license problems in future.
> >
> > Regards, Aleksandr Palamar
> > ___
> > vala-list mailing list
> > vala-list@gnome.org
> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
> --
>
> Guillaume Poirier-Morency 
>
> Étudiant au baccalauréat en Informatique à l'Université de Montréal
> Développeur d'application web
>
> Mon blog: https://arteymix.github.io/
> Mon projet de coopérative: https://pittoresque.github.io/
> Clé PGP: B1AD6EA5
> ___
> 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

[Vala] Vala and GLib license

[Aleksandr Palamar]

Hi, Vala-List users.

I'm curious about GLib license (which is the core of Vala runtime), mainly
because I'm thinking about using Vala in closed source (or zlib if that
would be possible in future) project, which may (or not) be used on
different platforms including iOS (which doesn't allow dynamic linkage),
PS4 and XBoxOne. Would it require to make application available under LGPL
as well or I would able to kept application under any license I like while
sharing (if target platform allows it, because I doubt about PS4 and XONE)
changes for GLib if there was any. Just don't want to go wrong way and
force myself to drain inside license problems in future.

Regards, Aleksandr Palamar
___
vala-list mailing list
vala-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list