An example of projects that use the current TightVNC codec are Chicken
of the VNC and OSXVNC, Mac versions of the VNC server and client.
Chicken of the VNC does not use any TightVNC/TigerVNC source as far as I
can see. The Tight encoding support is implemented in
TightEncodingReader.m, in objective C. There's no reference to any
TightVNC or Constantin Kaplinsky copyright in the source tree.
OSXVnc seems to have copied tight.c and tight.h from an old TightVNC
version, probably TightVNC 1.2.9 or something like that. But this is a
totally different code base; that code is not a part of the TigerVNC
project, as far as I can tell.
Also, the question is not really if any projects have been copying from
TightVNC in the past, but rather if they want to continue copying from
(future) TigerVNC releases, without updating their license, and if that's
something that we care about.
There are other types of specialized codes, like x11vnc, that use the
TightVNC codec with few modifications.
My view is that x11vnc has been superseeded by x0vncserver (which is a
part of the TigerVNC project).
that people can just use the protocol. There is a lot of complexity to
the vnc-tight protocol, and even more that we plan to add.
But as Pierre said, we really don't want other projects to copy or code.
It's not very hard to take the C++ class and re-use it, but it's much
harder to try and figure out what the class is doing.
Many projects, including CotVNC and OSXVnc, does not use C++ at all. So
they cannot copy our C++ classes without much trouble. Also our C++
classes are also not very well isolated; they depend on the rfb/rdr
framework etc.
[From the second email]:
The main sections that I'm concerned about are the TightVNC codec
sections, so leaving those as GPL v2 would be a compromise.
My suggestion is that we "downgrade" the license if/when we have
identified a case when this is actually needed and makes sense.
I still
don't really see any need for GPL v3 on the project as a whole, though,
and I would vote against it until more of the OSS community is
standardized around GPL v3.
I doubt that the community will ever "standardize" around a single
license, but from my point of view, GPLv3 is quite a standard license
nowadays.
My personal opinion of GPL v3 is that it's all smoke and no substance.
I think that there is a lot of FUD being generated in the OSS community
around GPL v2 in an attempt to get people to upgrade, but the reality is
that if GPL v2 were really that dangerous, there would have been a lot
more exploits of it.
GPL violations in general are pretty common. If a TigerVNC violation would
be tried in court, do we really want our code to be licensed using a 18
year old license, a license from the Windows 3.0 era? Much wisdom wrt
licensing has been gathered since.
Best regards,
---
Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer
Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com
Wallenbergs gata 4
583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Tigervnc-devel mailing list
Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
