Jump to page: 1 2
Thread overview
Synesis Software license
Apr 28, 2004
Ant
Apr 28, 2004
Norbert Nemec
Apr 28, 2004
Ant
Apr 28, 2004
Norbert Nemec
Apr 28, 2004
Ant
May 07, 2004
Phill
May 07, 2004
Ant
Apr 28, 2004
Bruno A. Costa
Apr 28, 2004
Norbert Nemec
Apr 28, 2004
Walter
Apr 29, 2004
Ant
April 28, 2004
IANAL so I might be going overboard for nothing...

please enlighten me.

from phobos.loader:

 *              (ii) Any derived versions of this software (howsoever modified)
 *              remain the sole property of Synesis Software.


Can we live with this?

Thanks,

Ant

April 28, 2004
Actually, I am missing any open source license in phobos at all!

Looking through dmd.zip, I find dmd/license.txt, which is not open source, and includes the binaries compiled against the Digital Mars compiler suite software itself. According to this license, you are not even allowed to pass the compiler on to someone. (I.e. to be correct, everyone would have to download it by themselves from the original site by DM.)

Two levels deeper, dmd/src/dmd contains alternatively GPL/Artistic License, so the compiler is fine.

dmd/source/phobos, though, does not contain any license whatsoever. A few selected files contain statements (like that in loader.d) but for most others, you are actually not allowed to do anything with the code.

Even copyrights are missing completely in most files, which would make matters really messy in the long run if someone questiones the authorship of this code.

I would strongly urge Walter to put a copyright header in every file of the library and put the library under a clear license (hopefully LGPL). The longer you wait, the more you might have to clean up in that respect. Be sure, the copyright is assigned to the right person. For contributed code, you either have to make sure, the copyright holder agrees with the license terms (in that case, they could keep the copyright, but you would end up with a rather fragmented copyright for the library that will make issues like relicensing a real problem.

The better solution is, of course, to ask contributors to sign over the copyright to Digital Mars. (No idea how formal that has to be. For huge chunks of code, a signature on paper would probably be necessary, but for the usual code-snippets, I don't think anybody would give a hoot about it.)

Special notices like the one in dmd/src/phobos/std/loader.d will definitely cause problems, because they collide with LGPL and probably also any other open source license. Try to avoid any modifications to the well-known OS-licenses. Even if it still falls under the terms of OS software, it will make people suspicious, start discussions and cause trouble somewhere along the way.

Ciao,
Nobbi

PS: Since you hope to get gdc (and probably phobos, too) into the GNU project, you might also want to contact the legal experts at GNU about that.



Ant wrote:

> IANAL so I might be going overboard for nothing...
> 
> please enlighten me.
> 
> from phobos.loader:
> 
>  *              (ii) Any derived versions of this software (howsoever
>  modified)
>  *              remain the sole property of Synesis Software.
> 
> 
> Can we live with this?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ant

April 28, 2004
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:47:53 +0200, Norbert Nemec wrote:

> Actually, I am missing any open source license in phobos at all!
> 
> Looking through dmd.zip, I find dmd/license.txt, which is not open source, and includes the binaries compiled against the Digital Mars compiler suite software itself. According to this license, you are not even allowed to pass the compiler on to someone. (I.e. to be correct, everyone would have to download it by themselves from the original site by DM.)
> 
> Two levels deeper, dmd/src/dmd contains alternatively GPL/Artistic License, so the compiler is fine.

Isn't phobos glt/artistic?

As a preventive measure I delete all Synesis source code from
my machine.
Luckally I never used any and my project (DUI and leds) still
compile with the new version of phobos.

My problem is that in the future some Synesis might see
some similarities on their code and mine and claim ownership
of something I wrote...
Ok here is the complete message I wrote last night:

*** original complete message ***

IANAL so I might be going overboard for nothing...

please enlighten me.

from phobos.loader:

 *              (ii) Any derived versions of this software (howsoever modified)
 *              remain the sole property of Synesis Software.


Can we live with this?
I can not.

I can't admit that in the future Synesis claims ownership of some thing I
wrote because it might have some similarities.
With the current IP and patent problems I can not afford to look at code
with that type of license at least until I discuss this with my lawyer.

As preventive mesuares:
I just deleted all source code from Synesis from my computer.
I deleted any files on the phobos src tree that contained the string
"ynesis" (except std/mmfile.d that doesn't contain the Synesis license)
and all my old (previous versions) dmd.zip files.
and I deleted the recent downloaded dmd.zip for dmd 0.86

Matthew, if there is another procedure to follow by someone that doesn't agree with the Synesis license let me know.

phobos still compiles (after changes to linux.mak) and DUI and leds still compile and run with the new phobos.

Walter, can you distribute phobos without the source code from Synesis?
Acording to some recente reading from growklaw If one has access to
some code and produces something similar it's assumed that it is a copy
even if the author claims never had look to the code
(for the US I guess).

"header" files should be OK unless the ridiculous claim SCO made on linux .h files is sanctioned by the courts.

Thanks,

Ant
before
-rw-r--r--    1 ruimt    users      687932 Apr 26 17:46 libphobos.a
after
-rw-r--r--    1 ruimt    users      635940 Apr 28 00:50 libphobos.a

April 28, 2004
This is a serious problem. Especialy these days when patents litigation has become a way of life...

Norbert Nemec wrote:

> Actually, I am missing any open source license in phobos at all!
> 
> Looking through dmd.zip, I find dmd/license.txt, which is not open source, and includes the binaries compiled against the Digital Mars compiler suite software itself. According to this license, you are not even allowed to pass the compiler on to someone. (I.e. to be correct, everyone would have to download it by themselves from the original site by DM.)
> 
> Two levels deeper, dmd/src/dmd contains alternatively GPL/Artistic License, so the compiler is fine.
> 
> dmd/source/phobos, though, does not contain any license whatsoever. A few selected files contain statements (like that in loader.d) but for most others, you are actually not allowed to do anything with the code.
> 
> Even copyrights are missing completely in most files, which would make matters really messy in the long run if someone questiones the authorship of this code.
> 
> I would strongly urge Walter to put a copyright header in every file of the library and put the library under a clear license (hopefully LGPL). The longer you wait, the more you might have to clean up in that respect. Be sure, the copyright is assigned to the right person. For contributed code, you either have to make sure, the copyright holder agrees with the license terms (in that case, they could keep the copyright, but you would end up with a rather fragmented copyright for the library that will make issues like relicensing a real problem.
> 
> The better solution is, of course, to ask contributors to sign over the copyright to Digital Mars. (No idea how formal that has to be. For huge chunks of code, a signature on paper would probably be necessary, but for the usual code-snippets, I don't think anybody would give a hoot about it.)
> 
> Special notices like the one in dmd/src/phobos/std/loader.d will definitely cause problems, because they collide with LGPL and probably also any other open source license. Try to avoid any modifications to the well-known OS-licenses. Even if it still falls under the terms of OS software, it will make people suspicious, start discussions and cause trouble somewhere along the way.
> 
> Ciao,
> Nobbi
> 
> PS: Since you hope to get gdc (and probably phobos, too) into the GNU project, you might also want to contact the legal experts at GNU about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ant wrote:
> 
>> IANAL so I might be going overboard for nothing...
>> 
>> please enlighten me.
>> 
>> from phobos.loader:
>> 
>>  *              (ii) Any derived versions of this software (howsoever
>>  modified)
>>  *              remain the sole property of Synesis Software.
>> 
>> 
>> Can we live with this?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Ant

April 28, 2004
Bruno A. Costa wrote:

> This is a serious problem. Especialy these days when patents litigation has become a way of life...

Actually, patent-license-problems are completely independant of copyright-license-problems. The first is about using a technical idea, like an algorithm, the second about actually written code.

Both problems exist, but currently, for D, the copyright/license-problem is far more pressing.
April 28, 2004
Ant wrote:

> Isn't phobos glt/artistic?

I couldn't find any notice. Maybe it is supposed to be, but nobody put the notice in there?

> As a preventive measure I delete all Synesis source code from my machine.

Maybe, deleting stuff is a bit overreacting. I have no idea how much Synesis code is in phobos and how crucial it is for its working. However it got in there, it might well be, that the nonfree-licensing term in the files are just an error and the copyright-holder is willing to donate these files. So, most important is, to clear up the facts.

April 28, 2004
In article <c6olmf$gf0$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Norbert Nemec says...
>
>Ant wrote:
>
>> Isn't phobos glt/artistic?
>
>I couldn't find any notice. Maybe it is supposed to be, but nobody put the notice in there?
>
>> As a preventive measure I delete all Synesis source code from my machine.
>
>Maybe, deleting stuff is a bit overreacting.

Maybe, I'm just afraid of involunterarly contaminating my original ideas.

> I have no idea how much Synesis
>code is in phobos and how crucial it is for its working.

Removing it has no impact on DUI or leds.

>However it got in
>there, it might well be, that the nonfree-licensing term in the files are
>just an error and the copyright-holder is willing to donate these files.
>So, most important is, to clear up the facts.

yep, let's wait and see...

Ant


April 28, 2004
"Ant" <duitoolkit@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:pan.2004.04.28.05.11.24.439730@yahoo.ca...
> IANAL so I might be going overboard for nothing...

Perhaps, but I agree that the phobos licensing in general needs overhauling.

What do you think of a dual LGPL/Artistic license?


April 29, 2004
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:18:38 -0700, Walter wrote:

> 
> "Ant" <duitoolkit@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:pan.2004.04.28.05.11.24.439730@yahoo.ca...
>> IANAL so I might be going overboard for nothing...
> 
> Perhaps,

you guys should know me by now :(

> but I agree that the phobos licensing in general needs overhauling.
> 
> What do you think of a dual LGPL/Artistic license?

perfect!

Does Matthew agrees to release his contributions on LGPL/Artistic? That would be the ideal situation.

Ant

May 07, 2004
 My problem is that in the future some Synesis might see
> some similarities on their code and mine and claim ownership
> of something I wrote...
> Ok here is the complete message I wrote last night:
>
> *** original complete message ***
>
> IANAL so I might be going overboard for nothing...
>
> please enlighten me.
>
> from phobos.loader:
>
>  *              (ii) Any derived versions of this software (howsoever
modified)
>  *              remain the sole property of Synesis Software.
>

I understand your worries but:
Im pretty sure the above means that if you alter his code
it is still the property of Synesis.
Im sure you would feel the same if somebody took your
DUI or LEDS code, and altered it for their profit or gain.

Im a bit surprised that Mathew hasnt commented on this.

Phill.


« First   ‹ Prev
1 2