www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Synesis Software license

reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
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
Apr 27 2004
next sibling parent reply Norbert Nemec <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> writes:
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

Apr 28 2004
next sibling parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
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
Apr 28 2004
next sibling parent reply Norbert Nemec <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> writes:
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.
Apr 28 2004
parent Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
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
Apr 28 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
 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

  *              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.
May 07 2004
parent Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c7g17a$6ov$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Phill says...
 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

  *              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.

Me too. DUI is LGPL and leds is GPL. (read the full license but ) This means that you can take any code and do whatever you want with it as long as you continue to distribute the source and don't charge for the code (and more). If you enhance leds I will not own the code you wrote. As I see it Synesis claims ownership of derived version and that might include (IANAL) the new code written by someone else. Obviously this group is not the right place to ask about these legal issues but I would expect at least a small comment from Matthew. Ant
May 07 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Bruno A. Costa" <bruno codata.com.br> writes:
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


Apr 28 2004
parent Norbert Nemec <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> writes:
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.
Apr 28 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"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?
Apr 28 2004
parent Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
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
Apr 28 2004