Any lawyers here?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luis Cobian
  • Start date Start date
L

Luis Cobian

Hello!

I am now in the (painful) process of choosing an Open Source license. I am
not a Open Source fan, but for many reasons that I won't explain here I am
willing to eventually give it a shot. To the point:

Does anybody know how OS licenses solve the following problem: My code use
some non-Open Source dll. Of course, I cannot make it's code public and I
don't want do distribute this dll either. Is it OK to open the source of my
code **and** provide info about the dll that must be downloaded for the code
to compile? I see the mine filed that GPL and LGPL are makes this not
possible here because of their same nature. Is there some license out there
that allows me to open the source of my code while allowing and protecting
3rd party developers work?

Regards
 
Luis said:
Hello!

I am now in the (painful) process of choosing an Open Source license. I am
not a Open Source fan, but for many reasons that I won't explain here I am
willing to eventually give it a shot. To the point:

Does anybody know how OS licenses solve the following problem: My code use
some non-Open Source dll. Of course, I cannot make it's code public and I
don't want do distribute this dll either. Is it OK to open the source of my
code **and** provide info about the dll that must be downloaded for the code
to compile? I see the mine filed that GPL and LGPL are makes this not
possible here because of their same nature.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so you should take what I say with a pinch of
salt. I generally release stuff into the Public Domain - which means
that anyone can do whatever they want with it, however they want. I
generally don't think that what I release is big stuff, so I figure I'll
just throw my stuff out there, and see what salutes it.

There was a strange case in America where, I believe, someone took
Public Domain software, and asserted copyright over it, even though they
were not the original author. Now, common sense dictates that if
something is legitimately in Public Domain, then it really is in public
domain, and you can no more assert copyright over it than you can assert
copyright over air. But this was in American law courts, where common
sense appears to be an irrelevancy. The copyright was upheld.

A safer way to distribute software that anyone can basically use how
they wish is to release it under a BSD licence:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
My understanding of it is that I retain copyright over my stuff, but I
allow you to do whatever you like with it, including modifying it and
asserting your own copyright.

There's a big debate between what is better - GPL or BSD. Personally, I
think that more stuff should be released under BSD, and less under GPL.
Is there some license out there
that allows me to open the source of my code while allowing and protecting
3rd party developers work?
Click to expand...

3rd party developer work doesn't become unprotected because you adopt a
liberal licence. If the 3rd party has copyright over their work, then
they still have copyright over their work, regardless of anything you
say. By that I mean, just because I say "I now release the latest Harry
Potter book into the public domain", doesn't mean that it actually is in
the public domain. JK Rowling would beg to differ.

I think you'd have to work out what the licencing agreements are wrt 3rd
party developer work before a more meaningful answer could emerge.
 
Luis said:
Is it OK to open the source of my
code **and** provide info about the dll that must be downloaded for the code
to compile?
Click to expand...

I don't see that as any particular problem.
I see the mine filed that GPL and LGPL are makes this not
possible here because of their same nature.
Click to expand...

One question you have to ask yourself is how you want to protect your
own code. If you are happy for others to use the code as they see fit,
then a BSD or MIT licence is what you're looking for. If you demand that
downstream authors also make their code available, then you want to go
down the GPL route.

As regards linking GPL code to proprietory libraries, I found some
useful info over at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface

Q: How can I allow linking of proprietary modules with my GPL-covered
library under a controlled interface only?

A: Add this text to the license notice of each file in the package, at
the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:

Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making
a combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and conditions of
the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of ABC give
you permission to combine ABC program with free software programs or
libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL and with independent
modules that communicate with ABC solely through the ABCDEF interface.
You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the
GNU GPL for ABC and the licenses of the other code concerned, provided
that you include the source code of that other code when and as the
GNU GPL requires distribution of source code.

Note that people who make modified versions of ABC are not obligated
to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is
their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public License gives
permission to release a modified version without this exception; this
exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which
carries forward this exception.



My interpretation of this is that you, as the original GPL author, can
allow linking to a 3rd-party module. However, it does not give a
derivative author the right to link in with other 3rd-party modules.
When you think about it, this makes sense, as a crafty derivative author
could create a proprietory DLL, and then make minor changes to the
original code to link into the DLL, thereby subverting the whole purpose
of GPL.
 
Hello Mark!

Thank you for your comments. Yes this isn't an easy theme and you need to be
a lawyer to correctly understand everything the license is trying to say.
Unfortunatly the viral nature of GLP means (if I understand it correctly)
that you must have access to the code of every part of the project, or so
people seem to unserstand it anyway searching Google.

There are lot of available licenses here:

http://opensource.org/licenses/

but it's a pitty that there are no comparations or plain english
explainations.

Regards
 
Luis said:
Hello Mark!

Thank you for your comments. Yes this isn't an easy theme and you need to be
a lawyer to correctly understand everything the license is trying to say.
Click to expand...

And what's more, they'd probably need to be a specialist lawyer.
Unfortunatly the viral nature of GLP means (if I understand it correctly)
that you must have access to the code of every part of the project, or so
people seem to unserstand it anyway searching Google.
Click to expand...

Well, as the original author, you can grant exceptions. From then on,
anything that touches it is basically a derivative work, and therefore
requires GPL.

Basically, I think you need to decide how /you/ want to licence the
code. If you're happy to let people use your code however you wish, then
you'll want to go down the BSD/MIT route. If you insist that derivative
works are made available, then you want to go down the GPL route. GPL
wont /forbid/ you granting exemptions.

Personally, I would rather go down the BSD/MIT route, as I don't
consider my work to be particularly important, and it makes the whole
licencing thing much less braindamaging.
There are lot of available licenses here:
http://opensource.org/licenses/
Click to expand...

Mercy, yes! The world probably only really needs 2 open licencing types:
BSD (or MIT), or GPL. Maybe Public Domain too.
but it's a pitty that there are no comparations or plain english
explainations.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I also think that some licenses are chosen inappropriately.
Here, I'm particularly thinking about some of the "lesser" programming
language projects and libraries (widgets, and stuff). IMO, GPL is
particularly unsuitable for this kind of stuff, and LGPL isn't much
better (it's too tedious). A BSD license would have been a much more
logical choice.

The CLISP Lisp project, for example, seems an unholy blend of very
liberal and convoluted (L)GPL stuff ... the upshot of which is that I
heard that a lawyer would basically "just say no".
 
Hello Mark!

Thank you for your comments. Yes this isn't an easy theme and you need to be
a lawyer to correctly understand everything the license is trying to say.
Unfortunatly the viral nature of GLP means (if I understand it correctly)
that you must have access to the code of every part of the project, or so
people seem to unserstand it anyway searching Google.

There are lot of available licenses here:

http://opensource.org/licenses/

but it's a pitty that there are no comparations or plain english
explainations.

Regards
Click to expand...
If I understand you the third party .dll is not your work therefore
you are unable to grant a GPL license for that .dll. Your license thus
must exclude that particular .dll from its OPEN provisions. You can
add a proviso to the license that states this but the actual wording
would be a matter for a lawyer to determine as to what would work in
your home territory.
 
Luis said:
Hello!

I am now in the (painful) process of choosing an Open Source license. I am
not a Open Source fan, but for many reasons that I won't explain here I am
willing to eventually give it a shot. To the point:

Does anybody know how OS licenses solve the following problem: My code use
some non-Open Source dll. Of course, I cannot make it's code public and I
don't want do distribute this dll either. Is it OK to open the source of my
code **and** provide info about the dll that must be downloaded for the code
to compile? I see the mine filed that GPL and LGPL are makes this not
possible here because of their same nature. Is there some license out there
that allows me to open the source of my code while allowing and protecting
3rd party developers work?

Regards
Click to expand...

You could ask in this mailing list

http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
cc-licenses | Creative Commons

or

this that targets developers

Description: General discussion of Creative Commons' free/open source
software projects and developer APIs.

Project Lead: Nathan Yergler, Creative Commons Software Engineer

* Post a message. <mailto:cc-devel -AT- lists.ibiblio.org>
* Subscribe to the discussion.
<http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel>
* Read the discussion archives.
<http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/>
 
Luis said:
Hello!

I am now in the (painful) process of choosing an Open Source license. I am
not a Open Source fan, but for many reasons that I won't explain here I am
willing to eventually give it a shot. To the point:

Does anybody know how OS licenses solve the following problem: My code use
some non-Open Source dll. Of course, I cannot make it's code public and I
don't want do distribute this dll either. Is it OK to open the source of my
code **and** provide info about the dll that must be downloaded for the code
to compile? I see the mine filed that GPL and LGPL are makes this not
possible here because of their same nature. Is there some license out there
that allows me to open the source of my code while allowing and protecting
3rd party developers work?
Click to expand...

I think you might be looking for something like the GNU Lesser General
Public License-
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

The new Dr. Divx ( http://labs.divx.com/DrDivX ) uses the GNU LGPL.

-Ben
 
Ben said:
I think you might be looking for something like the GNU Lesser General
Public License
Click to expand...

Careful, I only think he'd want that if he himself wanted to release a
library. I got the impression that he wanted to write an executable, so
LGPL might not be what he's looking for.

But of course, we still don't know what his basic desire is - to write
something that must be copylefted, or can be used for just about any
purpose. Only the OP can decide that. So what I'm suggesting is that he
either needs GPL with an exemption to link in with the dll, OR he wants
a BSD-style license, BUT he probably doesn't want LGPL either way.
 
Back
Top