OsLib licence

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 13 Feb 2003, in message <fb760fc44b.colin at colin/granville.gmx.co.uk>,
you wrote:

> Tony van der Hoff <tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >On 11 Feb 2003, in message <8e763ec34b.tom at compton.compton.nu>,
> >Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <19bf22c34b.colin at colin/granville.gmx.co.uk> you wrote:
> >> 
> >> > I've been looking into oslib and am totally confused by your GPL
> >> > with exclusion clause.
> >> 
> >[snip]
> >> 
> > Colin, if you have a specific problem with complying with the licence,
> > let us know the details, and we'll try to help you out. We have had a
> > handful of specific queries over the years, which have all been
> > satisfactorily resolved, but in general people seem to handle the not
> > very onerous conditions quite well.
> > 
> > I think the definitive answer to your query is on the OSLib web page at
> > Sourceforge, dealing copyright issues, where it clearly states that the
> > contents of specific source directories fall under the (relaxed) GPL.
> > That includes sources authored by Jonathan, Tom, myself, and others. The
> > page is signed by myself, and its authority should be good enough for
> > you.
> 
> I've read that. My problem is the relaxed GPL and my  responsibilities
> under it.
> 
Yes, that's what you said originally in your post to Tom. I asked for your
*specific* problem, i.e. what are you trying to do that makes your case
different from the hundreds of other users?

> Your licence states:
> 
> OSLib is released under the GNU  public licence - for details see  the 
> file "copying" included with  this release. The  copyright holders have 
> granted  a relaxation of the conditions of this licence to allow its use in
> constructing proprietary  software.  This means  that  it  is  free
> software  itself,  but applications linked to it need not be.  It follows
> that any changes  to  OSLib itself (the contents of the directories Tools,
> Source, and  OSLibSupport) fall under the terms of the GNU Public Licence;
> but programmes written  using OSLib do not.
> 
Thank you for repeating it. I might be tempted to tinker with some of the
words, but I believe the meaning is quite clear. I also note you've dropped
your earlier concerns about authors other than Jonathan agreeing to the
license. We must be making progress.

> Forget about binaries for the moment just consider the source.
> 
You must distinguish OSLib, the binary library; and OSLib, the tool chain and
SWI modules used to build the library. The exemption applies to the binary
library. The toolchain and SWI modules are protected by the GPL. Similar
reasoning applies to OSLibSupport.

>   1) Can I include one of your source files in my program and 
>      distribute my program binary only? (which is what happens when 
>      I include a header file)
> 
No. It falls under the GPL, as in "the contents of directories ...". This is
patently obvious from the wording you quoted above. The headers for the
release library are not contained in those directories, and are therefore,
with the binary library, exempt for use with that library.

>   2) Can I include a modified version of one of your source files in 
>      my program and distribute my program binary only? (if so I've 
>      distributed a modified version of OsLib in binary form)
> 
No. As above.

> If the answer is yes then the licence at the top of every file is 
> wrong as it should carry the exemption as I'm distributing the 
> library in binary form. If no then my program must be GPL'd.
> 
The answer is no, and unless you tell us more about what you're getting at,
your program must indeed be GPL'd.

> If the answer is yes then there is never any requirement on my part 
> to release oslib source as any work created from oslib (which would 
> include an oslib subset or superset) can be created under the 
> exemption.
> 
The answer is still NO!

> So where does the GPL come in?

The GPL protects OSLib source (the contents of directories ...). This, in
particular, but not exclusively, is aimed at the SWI modules, the proprietary
tools used to build OSLib, and the source code for OSLibSupport. I daresay
you can pick holes in it, but I believe the license is quite clear on this.

However, *as a concession* you may use the binary object files produced by
these tools in whatever way you choose, as they are exempted from the GPL. I
believe this also to be quite clear. However, as with any concession, it is
not to be abused by stretching it beyond its bounds. I rather believe you're
hoping to do so - forget it.

The intent, in case it is not yet evident, is to make it easy for people to
generate proprietary programs linked to the OSLib libray, but to protect the
source code used to generate that library.

We would, for instance, consider it grossly unfair if you were to issue a
proprietary application for financial gain if it was based upon work, say
DefMod, which has taken someone hours of work toward the public good.
Similarly using the SWI modules, in which many hours are invested, as a basis
for, say, a proprietary emulator would be equally unacceptable.

> 
> It seems to me that far from being a relaxation your exemption blows 
> the GPL away. I can't believe that is the intention but I can't see 
> where I'm wrong.
> 
None of us are lawyers; we are software professionals, who believe in,
and wish to contribute to the open software movement. We write software; we
don't argue about it. 

 * We wish for OSLib to be open source, protected by an appropriate licence.

 * We recognise that there are circumstances where the constraints on open
   source are inappropriate. 
   
 * We have permitted a relaxation of the rules imposed by the GPL in *and
   only in* the use of the binary library produced by the OSLib tools. 
   
There are hundreds of OSLib users happily using the binary library (and the
necessary headers) to build both open and proprietary programs. This includes
RISC OS itself. A few have sought clarification on the licence; none, so far,
have failed to understand the intent. It is clear enough for most.

Jonathan has produced, and we maintain, OSLib purely voluntarily, in the hope
that it will be useful to someone. Some users have sent fault reports and
patches, Tom and I have spent a lot of time maintaining the library, and
supporting users; all contributing to what makes open source great. We really
don't have time to nit-pick over the licence for someone who wants to make a
profit out of our work.

We would prefer OSLib to be fully (L)GPL, but are pragmatic about this.
However, we all have real lives, and don't choose to spend time and money
researching and writing bullet-proof software licences.

Now, it boils down to this: You are very welcome to use OSLib within the
*intent* of the license, which both Tom and I have gone to some trouble to
explain to you. If you feel uncomfortable about this, I would truly regret
it, but you have the option of writing your own code. 

Alternatively, rather than talking hypothetically, specify your *precise*
problem. There may be a way round it. We may, for instance, be able to grant
you a further relaxation on the licence for a specific project. But you'll
have to ask! 

However, we would first urge you to join the open source movement; and
release your code under the GPL, then you'd have no problems.

Now, this has taken me quite a lot of unproductive time to compile. Given
that the ambiguities you believe you have found are, in my (and others)
opinion non existent, this, for me, is not the best way to support OSLib. I
hope it helps, but otherwise take it or leave it.


Cheers, Tony

-- 
Tony van der Hoff         | MailTo:tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk
                          | MailTo:avanderhoff at iee.org
Buckinghamshire, England  | http:www.mk-net.demon.co.uk