Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Well, since they are removing all of this code from Cendio in order to implement Microsoft's RDP specifications, I don't think anybody would agree about the seeing and using part. Marc seemed to be saying that they needed to remove all that code to implement the Microsoft RDP spec so they are not

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Hello Peter, * Peter Åstrand [20110630 17:03]: >> Peter, >>I've been sitting here watching this discussion for a bit. >>So what is it that you are saying? >> >>Are you saying that FreeRDP has to go back all the way to before >> this 2002.07.18 date in the rdesktop repo to start as the

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Peter, I've been sitting here watching this discussion for a bit. So what is it that you are saying? Are you saying that FreeRDP has to go back all the way to before this 2002.07.18 date in the rdesktop repo to start as their baseline in order that they have not derived from you or Cendi

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Peter, I've been sitting here watching this discussion for a bit. So what is it that you are saying? Are you saying that FreeRDP has to go back all the way to before this 2002.07.18 date in the rdesktop repo to start as their baseline in order that they have not derived from you or Ce

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Our view is that you cannot just look at individual lines. For example, all the lines that are "written" (according to Subversion) by, say, Matt may in turn be based on previous work done by us, ie such code may also be derived work. Rgds, Peter On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Vic Lee wrote: Hi Pete

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Am Mittwoch, den 29.06.2011, 16:37 +0200 schrieb Peter Åstrand: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Jürgen Lüters wrote: > > > copyright law at least in europe, northamerica and japan protects the > > work computer program in our case. The law does protect programms in > > binary and text form. > > The law doe

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

The FreeRDP community owns copyright on code which is ours, not yours. You are not violating our copyright by using it in a context not allowed by the license we use, in this case, Apache, but you are trying to force *your* terms of usage on us by making vague claims that you own copyright on

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Peter Åstrand wrote: > > Comments below: > > > Hi Peter, >> We're not talking about "trivial changes" that would make such a tool >> fail. FreeRDP is following the official >> Microsoft specifications. We can easily see the difference between >> rdesktop and Fre

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Comments below: Hi Peter, We're not talking about "trivial changes" that would make such a tool fail. FreeRDP is following the official Microsoft specifications. We can easily see the difference between rdesktop and FreeRDP for that reason: rdesktop pretty much remained the same after the spe

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Hi Peter, We're not talking about "trivial changes" that would make such a tool fail. FreeRDP is following the official Microsoft specifications. We can easily see the difference between rdesktop and FreeRDP for that reason: rdesktop pretty much remained the same after the specs were published, wh

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Jürgen Lüters wrote: copyright law at least in europe, northamerica and japan protects the work computer program in our case. The law does protect programms in binary and text form. The law does _not_ protect ideas and concepts. Several programs can implement the same algor

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Am Dienstag, den 28.06.2011, 10:17 +0200 schrieb Jürgen Lüters: > Am Montag, den 27.06.2011, 17:04 -0400 schrieb Marc-André Moreau: > > Hi Jurgen, > > > > > > Can you just tell me the commands you used to generate the output > > which you've attached to your email? > > > Find the script attached

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Am Montag, den 27.06.2011, 23:09 +0200 schrieb Andreas Kotes: > Hello, > > * Marc-André Moreau [20110627 22:18]: > > I started using the tool. I'm using yesterday's version from git, and > > rdesktop revision 1505, which corresponds to the time at which we forked the > > project. > > > > I manua

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Hi Andreas, Not so fast, those results are based on an older version of FreeRDP, which are obviously NOT to be used as a comparison point. The results shown with the latest version of FreeRDP are actually much more encouraging. On the other hand, the tool is pretty cool, and may provide a good w

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Hello, * Marc-André Moreau [20110627 22:18]: > I started using the tool. I'm using yesterday's version from git, and > rdesktop revision 1505, which corresponds to the time at which we forked the > project. > > I manually removed the git and svn hidden directories from the source trees. > The do

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Hi Jurgen, I started using the tool. I'm using yesterday's version from git, and rdesktop revision 1505, which corresponds to the time at which we forked the project. I manually removed the git and svn hidden directories from the source trees. The documentation for the comparator mentions that th

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License change source tree comparison findings

Hi Jurgen, Thank you for pointing out this interesting tool. There's a lot of "noise" though in the results, a match between rdesktop and FreeRDP does not mean copyright infringement, since we had the agreement of the original authors, except for Cendio AB. Do you know of any way to filter out stu

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change, Phase 2

That *will* be done, haha :) On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Vic Lee wrote: > Thanks! One more thing I think we should consider, is to change the > statement of the project goal after we are "clean". The statement "freerdp > is a fork of rdesktop" should be removed because if we are clean, we

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change, Phase 2

Thanks! One more thing I think we should consider, is to change the statement of the project goal after we are "clean". The statement "freerdp is a fork of rdesktop" should be removed because if we are clean, we should no longer be a fork. Personally I never treat this project as a rdesktop for

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change, Phase 2

...and it's done. I hope to get an answer from the SFLC soon. From what I've been told on their IRC channel, my inquiry shouldn't go to /dev/null ;) On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Marc-André Moreau < marcandre.mor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, let's do that as well > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change, Phase 2

Ok, let's do that as well On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Vic Lee wrote: > Hi Marc, > > So why not do it the official way now? :) I suggest we make an official > announcement on freerdp.com homepage saying that we are "in progress" of > re-licensing the project to Apache-2.0, and encourage peop

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change, Phase 2

Hi Marc, So why not do it the official way now? :) I suggest we make an official announcement on freerdp.com homepage saying that we are "in progress" of re-licensing the project to Apache-2.0, and encourage people to contact with us. Vic On 03/11/2011 10:35 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Hi

[Freerdp-devel] License Change, Phase 2

Hi FreeRDP developers, So far, the license change has been smooth. I was worried at one point that we wouldn't be able to reach Matthew Chapman to ask him permission, but we managed to :P Someone on rdesktop-devel brought the attention towards our license change yesterday, so we need to take the t

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Otavio, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 19:37, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > > Hi Otavio, > > I can't force your hand, if there is too much opposition to a license > more > > permissive than LGPL then I will have no choice but to comply. Maybe th

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hello, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 20:19, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jay Sorg wrote: >> If this must be done, there is another alternative. >> Rewrite the library from docs using the new license. >> I would join this effort plus I would like to re architect libfreerdp

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 19:37, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Hi Otavio, > I can't force your hand, if there is too much opposition to a license more > permissive than LGPL then I will have no choice but to comply. Maybe the > timing isn't right, it might be a little too early to switch to something as

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Jay, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jay Sorg wrote: > Marc, > > For the record, consider all my contributions to FreeRDP to be > re-licensable under Apache, MIT, BSD, LGPL, pretty much whatever you > like. > > Thanks > If this must be done, there is another alternative. > Rewrite the libra

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hallo, * Otavio Salvador [20110207 20:12]: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 17:59, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Otavio Salvador > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:49, Marc-André Moreau > >> wrote: > >> >> If we had a feature-complete client I might agree with

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Marc, For the record, consider all my contributions to FreeRDP to be re-licensable under Apache, MIT, BSD, LGPL, pretty much whatever you like. If this must be done, there is another alternative. Rewrite the library from docs using the new license. I would join this effort plus I would like to re

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Josh, The problem with GPL in Apple's App Store is the additional restrictions that Apple imposes in order to build and install from source an application. In order to do that, you need to be a registered developer. Since GPL forbids adding additional restrictions, Apple's App Store is technica

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Otavio, I can't force your hand, if there is too much opposition to a license more permissive than LGPL then I will have no choice but to comply. Maybe the timing isn't right, it might be a little too early to switch to something as permissive as ASL. However, if we switch to LGPL now, would yo

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 17:59, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Otavio Salvador > wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:49, Marc-André Moreau >> wrote: >> >> If we had a feature-complete client I might agree with you but >> >> nowadays I don't. We lack too many features a

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Hi Mads, > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >> >> On 02/07/2011 07:12 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: >> > Hi FreeRDP developers, >> Some less relevant comments/opinions: >> >> OpenSSL is AFAIK the only common crypto

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:14, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > >> 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

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > On 02/07/2011 05:14 PM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > >> 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. >> >

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:49, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > >> If we had a feature-complete client I might agree with you but > >> nowadays I don't. We lack too many features and the code contribution > >> is a safe-path for us to get them

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On 02/07/2011 05:14 PM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > 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. Since we are discussing details: No, GPLv2 itself do not allow an

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:05, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > ... > > 2) With a reciprocal license, people will be forced to contribute back, > but > > they might not use the code at all because of that (chilling effect) > > I agree that it i

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:49, Marc-André Moreau wrote: >> If we had a feature-complete client I might agree with you but >> nowadays I don't. We lack too many features and the code contribution >> is a safe-path for us to get them done. If someone wants to have a >> closed client, go and do it fro

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:14, Marc-André Moreau wrote: >> 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 its

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:05, Marc-André Moreau wrote: ... > 2) With a reciprocal license, people will be forced to contribute back, but > they might not use the code at all because of that (chilling effect) > I agree that it is a possible risk, but I think that it is probably better > to go for s

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Mads, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Mads Kiilerich 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

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Otavio, While LGPL is more permissive than GPL, code within the library is still affected by the virality of the license. There are two possible views on this: 1) With a permissive (non-reciprocal) license, people might use our code without contributing back 2) With a reciprocal license, peopl

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Josh, Actually, Apache License 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3, but not GPLv2. Here is more info: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html I was thinking that we might keep the UIs GPL'ed, since I don't see much use in making the

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

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 > i

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hello, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 06:12, 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, especi

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

A disclaimer: I'm not a significant contributor to the project, so I'll go along with whatever is decided. Have you considered dual-licensing GPL and Apache? It seems that Apache is incompatible with the GPL. Making the project incompatible with GPL projects seems like a step backward, IMO. JoshN

[Freerdp-devel] License Change

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 n