Re: [ft] Freetype license
Hello Titone! > Hi, I am considering using Freetype in my OpenGL project, that I > would like to keep closed-source. I am confused about your > licensing as the GPL requires making source code to my project > available, and the Freetype License (FTL) doesn't. The FTL only > requires attribution and distribution of the license conditions. I > was wondering if I use Freetype alone or say with something like > Pango, which license I'm required to follow. Pango is LPGL2, so you need GPL for your project only if you are going to link statically with Pango (and you have to publish your source code then). In that case you need the GPL2 version of FreeType, since the FTL is not compatible with LGPL2 due its advertisement clause. BTW, the same is true for all other GPL or LGPL code you are going to link statically. For all other cases, you can use FTL. Werner ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
[ft] Freetype license
Hi, I am considering using Freetype in my OpenGL project, that I would like to keep closed-source. I am confused about your licensing as the GPL requires making source code to my project available, and the Freetype License (FTL) doesn't. The FTL only requires attribution and distribution of the license conditions. I was wondering if I use Freetype alone or say with something like Pango, which license I'm required to follow. Thanks. Maurice. ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] FreeType License and patents
Comments? >>> >>> Why not just switch to Apache? Well, we have our special advertisement clause, and I would like to stay with it. >> However, by switching to Apache2, or by adding such a clause, you >> will likely make Freetype harder to use for some projects that may >> have liked the current license better. (e.g. OpenBSD: they don't >> like Apache2, and maybe would reject Freetype license + patent >> grant.) This is life. To please everyone, we have to make it public domain, probably. But I definitely don't do this. Werner ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] FreeType License and patents
Eric Rannaud écrivit : > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> On 13 January 2012 20:13, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >>> I would like to add something similar, with the exception that code >>> especially marked as patented within the FreeType source code is not >>> covered. >>> >>> Comments? >> Why not just switch to Apache? > Apache2 is not compatible with GPLv2 ... neither is the FreeType License (FTL), which is the very reason for the complex licensing if I understand correctly (docs/LICENSE.TXT) > However, by switching to Apache2, or by adding such a clause, you will > likely make Freetype harder to use for some projects that may have > liked the current license better. (e.g. OpenBSD: they don't like > Apache2, and maybe would reject Freetype license + patent grant.) Are you sure OpenBSD is using the Freetype library under the FreeType License (i.e., with explicit attribution a.k.a "advertising")? Antoine ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] FreeType License and patents
On 13 January 2012 20:13, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > I would like to add something similar, with the exception that code > especially marked as patented within the FreeType source code is not > covered. > > Comments? Why not just switch to Apache? ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
[ft] FreeType License and patents
Folks, I've recently stumbled across the following paragraph from the Apache license 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html): 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. Looking up the FreeType License I've found out that we don't have such a clause... I would like to add something similar, with the exception that code especially marked as patented within the FreeType source code is not covered. Comments? Werner ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] FreeType license confirmation
[email protected] wrote: > We are considering using “FreeType” in our products. > > Before going any further, however, we would like to confirm the following so > that we are sure to fully respect your rights. > > You are the author and owner of the copyrights in the program. > > You have distributed the program under the attached license that > permits us to use and redistribute the program with or without modification > provided that any conditions stated in the license are met. I did not see any actual attachements. However the conditions established in the LICENSE file distributed with any release of Freetype, are that you should choose between two options: - one is the GPLv2 license, which allows you to use Freetype in your product provided your whole product is also covered by the GPL (which usually means you should provide the code in source form.) - the other is the FTL license, which allows you to use Freetype in your product without changing its license, but requires you to "advertise" the use of Freetype. A quick search through the web showed me the manuals for the Toshiba "BDX2000" product (apparently a DVD reader) to enclose such references, so presumably its firmware is using the FTL licensing terms. Note however that I am not a lawyer, and I did not take the time to confirm whether such notices conform to each and every clauses of the license. Hope it helps, Antoine ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
[ft] FreeType license confirmation
Hello. I'm Shinobu Watanabe, working for Toshiba Corp. Japan. We are considering using “FreeType” in our products. Before going any further, however, we would like to confirm the following so that we are sure to fully respect your rights. You are the author and owner of the copyrights in the program. You have distributed the program under the attached license that permits us to use and redistribute the program with or without modification provided that any conditions stated in the license are met. If you would please send me a return email confirming the above, that would be most appreciated. And thank you very much for taking the time to create such a useful program. Best Regards, -- Shinobu Watanabe Visual Network Team 2 Visual Network Software Dept, Software Center Toshiba Degital Media Engineering Corporation Tel:+81-48-574-2410 E-mail:[email protected] -- ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] Freetype license query
> Hi sent the follow to the free software foundation [...] > > I received the following reply. [...] Thanks for telling us! Since this information is now in the mailing list archive, people should actually find it if necessary. Werner ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] Freetype license query
Hi sent the follow to the free software foundation "I have an LGPL library (Version 3) in which I would like to use Freetype. Can I link to freetype and still distribute my library as a binary? I asked on the freetype mailing list and was directed here so it would be good to get a definitive answer. Your website says GPL and Freetype licenses are compatible but does not mention the LGPL." I received the following reply. Given that the LGPLv3 is essentially an extra set of permissions on top of the GPLv3, then if a license is compatible with the GPLv3, it is also compatible with the LGPLv3. > Is this true just for dynamic linking or statically as well ? It is true of both dynamic and static linking. As the Freetype license is on the fsf website as being compatibale with the GPL I guess it is also compatible with the LGPL. Thanks ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] Freetype license query
> I have an LGPL library (Version 3) in which I would like to use > Freetype. Can I link to freetype and still distribute my library as > a binary? > > Is this true just for dynamic lining or statically as well ? Good question. I don't know. The question is whether the FreeType License (FTL) is compatible with the LGPL. Perhaps people from the FSF can help you. If you get any results please post them here. Werner ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
[ft] Freetype license query
Hi I am little confused if I can legally use Freetype under the two licenses it is released under. I have an LGPL library (Version 3) in which I would like to use Freetype. Can I link to freetype and still distribute my library as a binary ? Is this true just for dynamic lining or statically as well ? Thanks Glenn ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
Re: [ft] Freetype License
> The first paragraph of the clause titled "3. Advertising" in the > Freetype license seems unclear to me. This may seem like a strange > request, but please reword and/or summarize it. You have to be more specific. What is unclear? Werner ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
[ft] Freetype License
The first paragraph of the clause titled "3. Advertising" in the Freetype license seems unclear to me. This may seem like a strange request, but please reword and/or summarize it. ___ Freetype mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype
