Embedded license? (SDL contributers please read!)

SDL Development
41

why is the GPL a good license? because it supports the free software
and not the proprietary. so the LGPL is lesser good? yes, because even
proprietary software can make use of LGPLed code, not just free.

yes: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

if people want to use free libs the should just accept that they have
to
comply to the license. at the end we want to have more free software
not
more proprietary, at least i do.

no. people should just accept that they have to comply with the
license? bs man. if a license sucks, we have a right (and perhaps good
reason) to bitch about it, and we definitely have the right to try and
choose better licenses for our own software.

of course, the lgpl doesn’t suck compared to many alternatives, so
nobody (points to all of you lgpl-nay-sayers) should be bitching about
it. this myth that you cannot distribute SUPPLEMENTARY statically
linked binaries of your LGPL-library-utilizing application is NOT TRUE.On Oct 28, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote:

42

Yes, if the license sucks, everyone has the right to complain and/or
try to get a better one. However, legally, everyone using a piece of
software is still required to comply with the license for that
software, unless and until a new license is put in place by the
copyright holder.

It would be easy to construe your statement above as advocacy of
pirated or otherwise illegal software use. I don’t believe that’s how
you intended it, but best to be safe on a developers’ list.

-JOn 10/31/05, Donny Viszneki wrote:

people should just accept that they have to comply with the
license? bs man. if a license sucks, we have a right (and perhaps good
reason) to bitch about it, and we definitely have the right to try and
choose better licenses for our own software.

43

of this from an authoritative source. And/or has been used various ways
throughout history, either inclusively or exclusively.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, Gerry is quite right.
However, that is the inclusive use of the statement. (Any use of
"and/or" is technically grammatically incorrect, inclusive, exclusive,
or otherwise…but I digress.) I will happily admit my mistake, if in
fact I am mistaken.

This is why, even though everyone hates lawyers, we should let lawyers
write license agreements, and not engineers that think slang like
"and/or" makes good legal shorthand. :slight_smile:

Based on common patterns of US English, I’d take “and/or” to mean:
release source, object code, or both.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

–ryan.

44

Elden Armbrust wrote:

Considering that Sam holds the copyright on SDL (as far as I know)

He doesn’t have it on every piece of code, which is precisely why he
asks contributors for their agreement on this license change.

Stephane

45

isnt he in a legal quagmire unless he can guarantee that everyone who
contributed agrees?On 11/1/05, Stephane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin at wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Elden Armbrust wrote:

Considering that Sam holds the copyright on SDL (as far as I know)

He doesn’t have it on every piece of code, which is precisely why he
asks contributors for their agreement on this license change.

Stephane

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

46
> Assume the following: > Joe Shmoe makes a game, "Foobar the blogmeister." for the Sony PSP. > (Assuming that...) The Sony PSP cannot link to shared libraries, and > therefore must be linked statically. > The PSP SDK contains software which restricts the free distribution of > the code contained. (Read: You can't give away the SDK or any part thereof.) > Now Joe wants to use SDL to handle all the menial work and get his game > working quickly. > Picture a large flashing "NO!" sign. That's exactly the answer he'd get > from a lawyer when asked if he could use SDL. > SDL, according to the LGPL, requires that the source code to a work > which links statically must be available to the public.

Except no it doesn’t. It says you can distribute an object, which the user
can re-link a newer/different libSDL against. You don’t HAVE to release
source. (Therein lies the core diff between GPL and LGPL, I believe.)

However, Sonys PSP SDK almost certainly will not allow the source code
of their work to be given away.

And, see above, you don’t have to.

Likewise, the game itself might be the next Quake/Half-Life/Unreal which
Joe wants to keep hidden from prying eyes which might steal his work.

And, see above, don’t release the source.

Even without looking at company specific terms, the UMD used by the PSP
is unreadable (as far as I know) on anything but a PSP.

And I think the original poster you were replying to (and now I) believe
that this is Somebody Else’s Problem (SEP). :^)

This means that Joe must offer his source code via mail, the internet,
or some other means.

OR object code.

Don’t get me wrong, the LGPL/GPL licenses are great, but not
particularly conducive for use on an embedded platform.

Err, except…

http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4936596231.html

Remember that while many of us might not have a problem with open
sourcing our software, most companies are firmly against it still.
Feel free to comment, take this to another conversation, do as you wish.
Consider my comments LGPL’ed. :wink:

Heh, I would, but it seems from above you’ve confused GPL with LGPL ;)On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:14:53PM -0400, Elden Armbrust wrote:

–
-bill!
bill at newbreedsoftware.com
http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/

47 
    Elden Armbrust wrote:
    >
    > Considering that Sam holds the copyright on SDL (as far as I
    know)
    
    He doesn't have it on every piece of code, which is precisely
    why he
    asks contributors for their agreement on this license change. 
    
    Stephane
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    SDL mailing list
    SDL at libsdl.org
    http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

isnt he in a legal quagmire unless he can guarantee that everyone
who contributed agrees?

I am not a lawyer, so take this with a very large grain of salt. OTOH, I
have been threatened with intellectual property rights law suits pretty
much every other year for the last 10 years. So, I have some experience
with this stuff. (You see there is this woolen goods company that thinks
they own my last name…) So, like I said, take this with a large grain
of salt…

Yes, no, maybe… The potential for a quagmire is there, but only if
someone gets ticked off and sues him. Since there are only a few people
who have contributed more than a patch here and a patch there there are
only a very small number of people who can gain anything by suing. Not
to mention that there isn’t that much money to go after. Unless Sam is
independently wealthy what can you get by suing? You could stop the
distribution of your code… but how long until we rewrite it?

I don’t see much problem with what Sam is doing. OTOH, the FSF requires
all contributors to file a written document that assigns the copyright
of your contributions to the FSF just to avoid this kind of problem. Of
course, the assignments can be challenged and may not be legal in all
jurisdictions, so what are you going to do?

What Sam is doing is, IMHO, reasonable.

	Bob PendletonOn Tue, 2005-11-01 at 23:02 +0000, Brian Barrett wrote:

On 11/1/05, Stephane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin at wanadoo.fr> wrote:

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
±-------------------------------------+

48

i agree completely, and would like for SDL to be able to be used in
embedded environments like so, but any potential legal problem with
SDL is a problem for those trying to convince people to use it, as
with any open source technology.

i don't forsee anyone having a problem with it, but you cannot

ignore that fact( i dont forsee anyone coming after my last name, but
it could happen as you well know ).On 11/9/05, Bob Pendleton wrote:

On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 23:02 +0000, Brian Barrett wrote:

On 11/1/05, Stephane Marchesin <stephane.marchesin at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Elden Armbrust wrote:
>
> Considering that Sam holds the copyright on SDL (as far as I
know)

    He doesn't have it on every piece of code, which is precisely
    why he
    asks contributors for their agreement on this license change.

    Stephane



    _______________________________________________
    SDL mailing list
    SDL at libsdl.org
    http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

isnt he in a legal quagmire unless he can guarantee that everyone
who contributed agrees?

I am not a lawyer, so take this with a very large grain of salt. OTOH, I
have been threatened with intellectual property rights law suits pretty
much every other year for the last 10 years. So, I have some experience
with this stuff. (You see there is this woolen goods company that thinks
they own my last name…) So, like I said, take this with a large grain
of salt…

Yes, no, maybe… The potential for a quagmire is there, but only if
someone gets ticked off and sues him. Since there are only a few people
who have contributed more than a patch here and a patch there there are
only a very small number of people who can gain anything by suing. Not
to mention that there isn’t that much money to go after. Unless Sam is
independently wealthy what can you get by suing? You could stop the
distribution of your code… but how long until we rewrite it?

I don’t see much problem with what Sam is doing. OTOH, the FSF requires
all contributors to file a written document that assigns the copyright
of your contributions to the FSF just to avoid this kind of problem. Of
course, the assignments can be challenged and may not be legal in all
jurisdictions, so what are you going to do?

What Sam is doing is, IMHO, reasonable.

            Bob Pendleton

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
–
±-------------------------------------+

SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl