Re: FLTK License
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1. Could you please elaborate on this? 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's complete source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and assuming that an appropriate copyright notice does identify their use of FLTK sufficiently. This then permeates the rest of the licence and the additional permission to use section 6 without having to pass on the licence doesn't change that requirement. Hope that's right, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote in message news:49c8da6f.7050...@debian.org... 4. You do not have to provide a copy of the FLTK license with programs that are linked to the FLTK library, nor do you have to identify the FLTK license in your program or documentation as required by section 6 of the LGPL. However, programs must still identify their use of FLTK. The following example statement can be included in user documentation to satisfy this requirement: [program/widget] is based in part on the work of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org). The December version has the above statement. The inclusion of such a statement appears to be a limitation on the the permission to omit the LGPL licence text. Even if that is not a limitation on this new permission, in this wording, the existing requirements of the LGPL to preserve copyright notices appears equivlent. Indeed all of the december licence appears to be additional permissions. It would be preferable if it were clear if this is really just the GPL+special exceptions, such that derivitives could remove the special exceptions. If it is not intended to be such, the FSF would probably take issue with this license So, my thought are that the December version is free, being just LGPL+additional permissions. I also tend to think it is fully GPL compatible, although I would really prefer clarification on it being just standard removable special exceptions. Unfortunately the same is not true of the May version: 4. Authors that develop applications and widgets that use FLTK must include the following statement in their user documentation: [program/widget] is based in part on the work of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org). That requirement is free, but makes this GPL-incompatible. This also appears to be an abuse of the LGPL, which should never have additional restrictions attached to it. Reccomendation: Check with upstream to see if the December version applies to libfltk2. If so, that is good. If not, try to convince them to update it to use the new license or preferably, an even newer version of the license that uses the standard special exception terms. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:43:14 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1. Could you please elaborate on this? 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's complete source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and assuming that an appropriate copyright notice does identify their use of FLTK sufficiently. This then permeates the rest of the licence and the additional permission to use section 6 without having to pass on the licence doesn't change that requirement. As Joe Smith has just explained in more detail, one of the two license versions includes a more specific requirement to embed a verbatim sentence in user documentation: I cannot find any such restriction in the GNU LGPL v2.1... -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpPovYPM2s4y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FLTK License
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it wrote: As Joe Smith has just explained in more detail, one of the two license versions includes a more specific requirement to embed a verbatim sentence in user documentation: I cannot find any such restriction in the GNU LGPL v2.1... I was looking at the December 2001 version mainly. The May 2001 version may be broken, but it's not clear to me. I'll cc this to the given bugs address to ask if the fltk team would update fltk 2.0 to the December 2001 version of the FLTK licence. fltk-bugs, how about it? Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1. Could you please elaborate on this? I cannot find any requirement to identify the use of the library in Section 1 of the GNU LGPL v2.1. Disclaimer: I am tired and I could therefore fail to see what is just in front of my eyes [1] ... [1] hey! we could make an acronym out of this, couldn't we? ;-) -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpz9t25cGg7L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FLTK License
In message 49c9a819.rvf2v61xchuvg7vu%...@phonecoop.coop, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com wrote: MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional permissions. Where is that requirement? To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The additional permissions make part of the license. Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive? Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs). Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at http://web.archive.org/web/2301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just a clarification? The FSF may be unusual in saying you can remove extra permissions. Normally you can't relicence someone else's code. But if you licence your added code WITHOUT the extra permissions, then you have effectively removed those permissions from the entire work. To get those permissions back, a recipient would have to strip your code from the work. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
In message 20090324232043.2789e...@pcolivier.chezmoi.net, Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com writes Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs). Correct - you can't change the permissions on the work THAT WAS LICENCED TO YOU unless you are given permission (which is *very* *rarely* done) If the FLTK demands that you use the FLTK for your own work, then that is unusual, and certainly demanding far more than the GPL (see below). Moreover the LGPL sates: [ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you ] This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative works. I'm not at all sure it does. Think about mixing LGPL and GPL code. The resulting work has (effectively) had its LGPL rights stripped. But there's nothing preventing the recipient separating the GPL and LGPL parts and using each according to its licence. If, however, the FLTK does explicity require you to give the extra permissions, then it is GPL (and LGPL?) incompatible. Look at this way. The GPL *DOES* *NOT* *EVER* make you licence your code under the GPL, even if you mix it with someone else's GPL code and distribute it. What it does is require you to licence your code under a GPL-compatible licence, which guarantees to the recipient that they can *safely* treat the entire work *AS* *IF* it were GPL-licenced. What is the FLTK trying to achieve? The guarantee provided by the GPL is that, as a recipient, you do not need to care what the licence is on the individual bits. If ANY of it is GPL, you can safely behave *as* *if* *all* of it is GPL, even if it isn't. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote: [...] - It seems it to fail the desert island test This is not in itself a problem, but usually suggests it fails DFSG 1, 3, 5, 6 and/or 7 in some combination. However, the FLTK License only *requests* contribution. It does not require it, so I think it doesn't fail the test anyway. - Is it linkable to GPL programs? I don't think so, because extra restrictions. What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1. So I think libfltk2 and libfltk1.1 packages could meet the DFSG. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 + MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org wrote: [...] - It seems it to fail the desert island test This is not in itself a problem, but usually suggests it fails DFSG 1, 3, 5, 6 and/or 7 in some combination. However, the FLTK License only *requests* contribution. It does not require it, so I think it doesn't fail the test anyway. - Is it linkable to GPL programs? I don't think so, because extra restrictions. What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual exceptions, assuming that identify their use of FLTK is in the LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1. So I think libfltk2 and libfltk1.1 packages could meet the DFSG. If I understand it well; the amendments of the LGPL are not removable (it is not explicitly said to be removable so by default it is not). But It seems then that this license might in fact be incompatible with the LPGL. In particular it prevents to relicence FLTK under the pure GPL which is normally allowed by the LGPL. Any derivative works of FLTK have to be distributed with the additional permissions and that make it incompatible with the GPL; because cannot distribute a derivative work of FLTK + A ; where A is a GPL licensed software with the special exceptions. You cannot grant the extra permissions to A but in the other hand you are obliged to do it by the FLTK license. To prevent such problems, when the FSF want to make additional permissions; they explicit said that you can remove the special exceptions; which avoid such problems. But it does not seems the case here. Anyway it seems that the license remains free but is confusing... Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com wrote: If I understand it well; the amendments of the LGPL are not removable (it is not explicitly said to be removable so by default it is not). But It seems then that this license might in fact be incompatible with the LPGL. They appear to be additional permissions, so are GPL-compatible IMO. In particular it prevents to relicence FLTK under the pure GPL which is normally allowed by the LGPL. Rather, it would be under the GPL plus additional permissions. Any derivative works of FLTK have to be distributed with the additional permissions and that [...] I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional permissions. Where is that requirement? Confused, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:56:51 + MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com wrote: If I understand it well; the amendments of the LGPL are not removable (it is not explicitly said to be removable so by default it is not). But It seems then that this license might in fact be incompatible with the LPGL. They appear to be additional permissions, so are GPL-compatible IMO. In particular it prevents to relicence FLTK under the pure GPL which is normally allowed by the LGPL. Rather, it would be under the GPL plus additional permissions. Any derivative works of FLTK have to be distributed with the additional permissions and that [...] I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional permissions. Where is that requirement? To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The additional permissions make part of the license. Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs). Moreover the LGPL sates: [ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you ] This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative works. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes: === FLTK License, May 2001 === FLTK License Ammended May 4, 2001 The following ammendments to the GNU Library General Public License apply for the FLTK library: 1. Modifications to the FLTK configure script, config header file, and makefiles by themselves to support a specific platform do not constitute a modified or derived work. Do the copyright holders get to declare what is or is not a derived work? I would expect that to be a matter of law, not to be defined in the license terms. The authors do request that such modifications be contributed to the FLTK project - send all contributions to fltk-b...@fltk.org. It's explicitly a request, so this doesn't impose an additional restriction. Good. 2. Widgets that are subclassed from FLTK widgets do not constitute a derived work. Ditto for re-defining the copyright law term “derived work”. 3. Static linking of applications and widgets to the FLTK library does not constitute a derived work and does not require the author to provide source code for the application or widget, use the shared FLTK libraries, or link their applications or widgets against a user version of FLTK. Ditto for re-defining the copyright law term “derived work”. If the author links the application or widget to a modified version of FLTK, then the changes to FLTK must be provided under the terms in sections 1, 2, and 4. Limiting the scope of the additional permission. Fine. 4. Authors that develop applications and widgets that use FLTK must include the following statement in their user documentation: [program/widget] is based in part on the work of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org). Imposing an additional restriction on top of what the LGPL requires, AFAICT. If so, this clause makes the work non-free. === FLTK License, December 2001 === FLTK License December 11, 2001 It seems that the above comments also apply to these terms. -- \ “My girlfriend said to me in bed last night, ‘You're a | `\ pervert’. I said, ‘That's a big word for a girl of nine’.” —Emo | _o__) Philips | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:06 +1100 Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes: === FLTK License, May 2001 === FLTK License Ammended May 4, 2001 The following ammendments to the GNU Library General Public License apply for the FLTK library: 1. Modifications to the FLTK configure script, config header file, and makefiles by themselves to support a specific platform do not constitute a modified or derived work. Do the copyright holders get to declare what is or is not a derived work? I would expect that to be a matter of law, not to be defined in the license terms. The purpose of a provision such as this is to reduce uncertainty. It is a representation by the licensor that it will not assert claims to certain classes of modifications even if legal arguments could be made that those modifications are derivative works. snip -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com wrote: MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional permissions. Where is that requirement? To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The additional permissions make part of the license. Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive? Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs). Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at http://web.archive.org/web/2301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just a clarification? Moreover the LGPL sates: [ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you ] This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative works. That text is from the preamble. The implementation is section 10, which refers to these terms and conditions which I take to mean the terms of this Lesser General Public License as used throughout the LGPL and not LGPL+additional permissions. I feel that's clear. It may be nice to have the additional phrasing used by FSF in later years (If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.) but I don't think it's a requirement. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: FLTK License
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:42:17 + MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Olive not0read0...@yopmail.com wrote: MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional permissions. Where is that requirement? To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The additional permissions make part of the license. Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive? Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs). Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at http://web.archive.org/web/2301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just a clarification? Moreover the LGPL sates: [ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you ] This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative works. That text is from the preamble. But the preample is part of the license. It can be used to interpret it. The implementation is section 10, which refers to these terms and conditions which I take to mean the terms of this Lesser General Public License as used throughout the LGPL and not LGPL+additional permissions. I feel that's clear. That was the intention of the author of the LGPL since the intention was to not to add something to the LGPL. But with the modification on top of the license, this is not clear at all anymore. I do not see why these extra permission would not make not part of the license. They are in the license file of FLTK. Note that it is a personal analysis. You may be right also. But I think the situation is somewhat confusing. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
