OSLib license

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 24 Nov at 2:31 Jonathan Coxhead <jonathan at doves.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message <47478D14.7010501 at doves.demon.co.uk>

[snip]
> 
>    I'm unhappy that someone has looked at the licence and concluded it was
too
> restrictive. If I'd known, I'm sure something could have been worked out.
> 

Having dug through the archives, I find this:

================================================================
Tony van der Hoff <tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>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?

I have no specific problem yet, however, having been stung with PDF 
and not realising the consequences of rewriting it, I don't intend 
to make the same mistake twice. I don't want to be caught out 
through ignorance again.
>
>> 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.

Yes I am, well sort of. It appears everyone has handed over 
copywrite to Jonathan Coxhead so he is well within his rights to 
make an exception for files that are his copyright..
>
>> 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.

I'm sorry that you think I am being obtuse or playing devils 
advocate or have some ulterior motive, really I don't I just don't 
want to use oslib - or pehaps a module compiled with oslib if I can 
only do so under the GPL. I know you have the power to grant 
exceptions...

Anyway it doesn't matter. Thanks for your help.
-- 
Colin

-- 
Tony van der Hoff        | mailto:tony at vanderhoff.org
Buckinghamshire, England