Hallo,
I'm one of the maintainers of the Pure Data CVS at Sourceforge (pure-data.sf.net). The repository also includes an OSC external for Pd which is based on the CNMAT example code in: http://cnmat.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl/src/ although an older version.
Recently it was brought to our attention, that much of the the code on the CNMAT OSC site - contrary to the text on the OSC homepage - is *not* distributed under an open source license, but instead restricts use to "educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes". Any other use, for example distribution of the source code on Linux distribution CDs or whatever, is prohibited by the OSC code license.
Now, as the OSC code doesn't come with a README including the license, but instead requires users to read the source code to find out about the "non-free"-ness and the usage restrictions, we made the mistake of including the OSC for Pd code in the Sourceforge CVS. (Mistake, because Sourceforge requires an open source license for hosted projects.)
As OSC is a very useful protocol (who am I telling this) we would still like to maintain a somehow Max-compatible set of OSC externals for Pd. But the license of the upstream code now forces us to either a) reimplement the protocol as real open source externals, probably using Steve's GPL'd liblo or b) wait for a change of the upstream code's license, which would of course spare us a lot of work.
Now my question is: Will the OSC code in above URL get an open source compatible license in the forseeable future?
Thank you for your help.
Ciao
I apologize for this problem, which is totally my fault and which never should have come up.
I changed the license for all of CNMAT's OSC-related code to a truly open-source license, quoted below, in early 2001. (I even ran it by Bradley M. Kuhn from the Free Software Foundation, who told me it's totally GPL-compatible.)
But it seems that I did a very bad job of updating all the various versions of OSC code on the CNMAT website to include the new license, so it's no wonder old versions have crept into the PD repository at SourceForge.
I believe that I just fixed everything under http://cnmat.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl/src to use the correct, new, open-source license; please let me know if this is not the case, or if you find other "published" OSC code with the bad old license.
Thanks,
-Matt
p.s. What's the right convention for where to put a README file explaining the license for a bunch of source code?
The correct OSC license:
Written by [name(s)], The Center for New Music and Audio Technologies, University of California, Berkeley. Copyright (c) [year], [year], [year], [...] The Regents of the University of California (Regents).
Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and distribute modified versions of this software and its documentation without fee and without a signed licensing agreement, is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies, modifications, and distributions.
IN NO EVENT SHALL REGENTS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF REGENTS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
REGENTS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION, IF ANY, PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS PROVIDED "AS IS". REGENTS HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.
At 9:24 AM +0200 4/12/04, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
I'm one of the maintainers of the Pure Data CVS at Sourceforge (pure-data.sf.net). The repository also includes an OSC external for Pd which is based on the CNMAT example code in: http://cnmat.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl/src/ although an older version.
Recently it was brought to our attention, that much of the the code on the CNMAT OSC site - contrary to the text on the OSC homepage - is *not* distributed under an open source license, but instead restricts use to "educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes". Any other use, for example distribution of the source code on Linux distribution CDs or whatever, is prohibited by the OSC code license.
Now, as the OSC code doesn't come with a README including the license, but instead requires users to read the source code to find out about the "non-free"-ness and the usage restrictions, we made the mistake of including the OSC for Pd code in the Sourceforge CVS. (Mistake, because Sourceforge requires an open source license for hosted projects.)
As OSC is a very useful protocol (who am I telling this) we would still like to maintain a somehow Max-compatible set of OSC externals for Pd. But the license of the upstream code now forces us to either a) reimplement the protocol as real open source externals, probably using Steve's GPL'd liblo or b) wait for a change of the upstream code's license, which would of course spare us a lot of work.
Now my question is: Will the OSC code in above URL get an open source compatible license in the forseeable future?
Thank you for your help.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ _______________________________________________ OSC_dev mailing list OSC_dev@create.ucsb.edu http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev
Hallo Matt, Matt Wright hat gesagt: // Matt Wright wrote:
I apologize for this problem, which is totally my fault and which never should have come up.
I changed the license for all of CNMAT's OSC-related code to a truly open-source license, quoted below, in early 2001. (I even ran it by Bradley M. Kuhn from the Free Software Foundation, who told me it's totally GPL-compatible.)
Thank you very much for this clarification. I'm really glad, that this turns out to be just a simple technical matter of various source versions floating around. The license below looks totally open source to my eyes, so to say, and will pose no problems for the Pd sources. And not having to change the source code for the OSC externals, which I use *intensivly* in my patches is a great easter present.
I believe that I just fixed everything under http://cnmat.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl/src to use the correct, new, open-source license; please let me know if this is not the case, or if you find other "published" OSC code with the bad old license.
I did my simple test which is a search for the word "profit" in the directories with:
$ grep -rl profit *
which found no matches. So all profit is indeed gone now. ;) I (or someone else of the Pd guys) will change the sources in our external repository in the next days, so that it reflects those changes.
p.s. What's the right convention for where to put a README file explaining the license for a bunch of source code?
Uhm, many projects put a file "LICENSE.txt" in the top level directory for the license. GNU-projects often call this "GPL.txt". Normally there also is a file "README" or "README.txt" which explains what's inside the package. But personally I like to forget to add both in my projects... :(
The correct OSC license:
Written by [name(s)], The Center for New Music and Audio Technologies, University of California, Berkeley. Copyright (c) [year], [year], [year], [...] The Regents of the University of California (Regents).
Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and distribute modified versions of this software and its documentation without fee and without a signed licensing agreement, is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies, modifications, and distributions.
IN NO EVENT SHALL REGENTS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF REGENTS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
REGENTS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION, IF ANY, PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS PROVIDED "AS IS". REGENTS HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.
Ciao
Matt Wright wrote:
I apologize for this problem, which is totally my fault and which never should have come up.
The correct OSC license:
Written by [name(s)], The Center for New Music and Audio Technologies, University of California, Berkeley. Copyright (c) [year], [year], [year], [...] The Regents of the University of California (Regents). Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and distribute modified versions of this software and its documentation without fee and without a signed licensing agreement, is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies, modifications, and distributions.
IN NO EVENT SHALL REGENTS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF REGENTS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
REGENTS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION, IF ANY, PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS PROVIDED "AS IS". REGENTS HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.
So this means that the code can be used freely and without fee so long as the licence is included?
At 5:33 AM +1000 4/13/04, Angelo Fraietta wrote:
So this means that the code can be used freely and without fee so long as the licence is included?
Yes; that's what it means.
Of course I always like to hear about what people are doing with the code, so as a courtesy, please email me (or the entire osc_dev list, if appropriate) when you make a new implementation, piece of music, etc.
-Matt
So I actually looked through those files and all the ones that I looked at had the newer free license:
/* Written by Adrian Freed, The Center for New Music and Audio Technologies, University of California, Berkeley. Copyright (c) 1992,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,2000,01,02,03,04 The Regents of the University of California (Regents).
Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and distribute modified versions of this software and its documentation without fee and without a signed licensing agreement, is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies, modifications, and distributions. */
Now its just a matter of someone merging in that code into what's in the CVS.
.hc
On Monday, Apr 12, 2004, at 03:24 America/New_York, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
I'm one of the maintainers of the Pure Data CVS at Sourceforge (pure-data.sf.net). The repository also includes an OSC external for Pd which is based on the CNMAT example code in: http://cnmat.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl/src/ although an older version.
Recently it was brought to our attention, that much of the the code on the CNMAT OSC site - contrary to the text on the OSC homepage - is *not* distributed under an open source license, but instead restricts use to "educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes". Any other use, for example distribution of the source code on Linux distribution CDs or whatever, is prohibited by the OSC code license.
Now, as the OSC code doesn't come with a README including the license, but instead requires users to read the source code to find out about the "non-free"-ness and the usage restrictions, we made the mistake of including the OSC for Pd code in the Sourceforge CVS. (Mistake, because Sourceforge requires an open source license for hosted projects.)
As OSC is a very useful protocol (who am I telling this) we would still like to maintain a somehow Max-compatible set of OSC externals for Pd. But the license of the upstream code now forces us to either a) reimplement the protocol as real open source externals, probably using Steve's GPL'd liblo or b) wait for a change of the upstream code's license, which would of course spare us a lot of work.
Now my question is: Will the OSC code in above URL get an open source compatible license in the forseeable future?
Thank you for your help.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams