Anyone know what the license is of the OSCx code in CVS is? On the files themselves, the license is a non-free license. So unless its been released under a different license also, it shouldn't be in SourceForge CVS and it can't be distributed with the Pd installers or in Debian. (This isn't a political issue, its a legal issue. UC Berkeley could sue SourceForge, guenter, or me, for example, for violating their license).
This is from the top of externals/OSCx/src/dumpOSC.c:
"Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes, 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. Contact The Office of Technology Licensing, UC Berkeley, 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 510, Berkeley, CA 94720-1620, (510) 643-7201, for commercial licensing opportunities."
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
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
hu.
never thought about this but of course this is an issue. all three OSC objects are only modifications of the cnmat programs respectively the max object. hm. rewrite anyone? ;)
anyway, i ll ask about it on the osc list and see what the cnmat ppl say.
_j
[Hans-Christoph Steiner]->[[PD-dev] OSCx License is not free?]->[04-04-05 10:55]
| |Anyone know what the license is of the OSCx code in CVS is? On the |files themselves, the license is a non-free license. So unless its |been released under a different license also, it shouldn't be in |SourceForge CVS and it can't be distributed with the Pd installers or |in Debian. (This isn't a political issue, its a legal issue. UC |Berkeley could sue SourceForge, guenter, or me, for example, for |violating their license). | |This is from the top of externals/OSCx/src/dumpOSC.c: | |"Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its |documentation for educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes, |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. Contact The |Office of |Technology Licensing, UC Berkeley, 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 510, |Berkeley, |CA 94720-1620, (510) 643-7201, for commercial licensing opportunities." | |.hc | |________________________________________________________________________ |____ | |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 |
Hallo, d.lj hat gesagt: // d.lj wrote:
never thought about this but of course this is an issue. all three OSC objects are only modifications of the cnmat programs respectively the max object. hm. rewrite anyone? ;)
anyway, i ll ask about it on the osc list and see what the cnmat ppl say.
Yes, that would be great. *If* it turns out to be an issue, then there's still Steve Harris' GPL'd OSC library liblo: http://plugin.org.uk/liblo/
Ciao
Really bad situation. I think the CNMAT should rethink its license, especially if they want OSC to become a standard. Its strange that the topic didn't show up before.
Guenter
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, d.lj wrote:
anyway, i ll ask about it on the osc list and see what the cnmat ppl say.
_j
[Hans-Christoph Steiner]->[[PD-dev] OSCx License is not free?]->[04-04-05 10:55]
| |Anyone know what the license is of the OSCx code in CVS is? On the |files themselves, the license is a non-free license. So unless its |been released under a different license also, it shouldn't be in |SourceForge CVS and it can't be distributed with the Pd installers or |in Debian. (This isn't a political issue, its a legal issue. UC |Berkeley could sue SourceForge, guenter, or me, for example, for |violating their license). | |This is from the top of externals/OSCx/src/dumpOSC.c: | |"Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its |documentation for educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes, |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. Contact The |Office of |Technology Licensing, UC Berkeley, 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 510, |Berkeley, |CA 94720-1620, (510) 643-7201, for commercial licensing opportunities." | |.hc | |________________________________________________________________________ |____ | |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 |
-- x D v . o R g GPG-key at http://xdv.org/~jdl/jdl.pub.asc
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 07:27, guenter geiger wrote:
Really bad situation. I think the CNMAT should rethink its license, especially if they want OSC to become a standard. Its strange that the topic didn't show up before.
Only the 'OSC-Kit' code is covered by that license (i.e. the OSC specification is still free).
One could easily use another implementation, e.g. Steve Harris's new liblo. (and it might be better code anyways - osckit did not strike me as being particularly robust, its more like an example than a production-ready library)
On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 15:17 America/New_York, Andrew (Andy) W. Schmeder wrote:
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 07:27, guenter geiger wrote:
Really bad situation. I think the CNMAT should rethink its license, especially if they want OSC to become a standard. Its strange that the topic didn't show up before.
Only the 'OSC-Kit' code is covered by that license (i.e. the OSC specification is still free).
One could easily use another implementation, e.g. Steve Harris's new liblo. (and it might be better code anyways - osckit did not strike me as being particularly robust, its more like an example than a production-ready library)
The specification might be free, that I don't know. But not necessarily, it might be covered under a similar non-commercial license. The code that is in the Pd CVS currently has the non-free license on the top of each file.
It seems crazy that UC Berkeley would have such a license considering that they are one of the pioneers of open-source. People do complain a lot these days that it has become quite conservative...
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 6 Avril 2004 16:47, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
It seems crazy that UC Berkeley would have such a license considering that they are one of the pioneers of open-source. People do complain a lot these days that it has become quite conservative...
Do you remember the presentation at NIME03 ? : http://cnmat.cnmat.berkeley.edu/Research/NIME2003/NIME03_Wright.pdf Someone asked Matt Wright if OSC was copyrigthed, since it was already included in commercial applications. I remembered he had no idea and that he didn't really care... - -- Marc
I just downloaded OSC-Kit.tar.gz from CNMAT, version 1.0.
Here is the license as it appears at the top of each source file.
There is no mention of educational/non-commercial restrictions.
Perhaps the OSCx files are from older source?
/* Copyright 1998. The Regents of the University of California (Regents). All Rights Reserved.
Written by Matt Wright, The Center for New Music and Audio Technologies, University of California, Berkeley.
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.
The OpenSound Control WWW page is http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl */
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 6 Avril 2004 19:18, Andrew (Andy) W. Schmeder a écrit :
Here is the license as it appears at the top of each source file.
There is no mention of educational/non-commercial restrictions.
It looks like a free license to me...
Perhaps the OSCx files are from older source?
Is it like a fork that uses the same restrictive license? If that's the case, then it could be rewritten using the latest OSC library.
- -- Marc
That's definitely promising, but unfortunately not definitive. There are many files in OSCx that do not come from the OSC-Kit. They probably come from the Max objects, so we'll need to track down the license on those files too.
I added all of the relevant files from OSC-Kit to OSCx and checked it in. There are a couple of very minor updates besides the license.
.hc
On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 19:18 America/New_York, Andrew (Andy) W. Schmeder wrote:
I just downloaded OSC-Kit.tar.gz from CNMAT, version 1.0.
Here is the license as it appears at the top of each source file.
There is no mention of educational/non-commercial restrictions.
Perhaps the OSCx files are from older source?
/* Copyright 1998. The Regents of the University of California (Regents). All Rights Reserved.
Written by Matt Wright, The Center for New Music and Audio Technologies, University of California, Berkeley.
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.
The OpenSound Control WWW page is http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl */
-- Andrew (Andy) W. Schmeder <andy \at a2hd \dot com> http://www.a2hd.com/
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 6 Avril 2004 18:54, Marc Lavallée a écrit :
Someone asked Matt Wright if OSC was copyrigthed, since it was already included in commercial applications. I remembered he had no idea and that he didn't really care...
Actually, I think that the question was about the patent, not the copyright, and that Matt said he was not sure a patent was necessary to protect the idea. Or something like that... - -- Marc
Hallo, Andrew (Andy) W. Schmeder hat gesagt: // Andrew (Andy) W. Schmeder wrote:
Only the 'OSC-Kit' code is covered by that license (i.e. the OSC specification is still free).
One could easily use another implementation, e.g. Steve Harris's new liblo. (and it might be better code anyways - osckit did not strike me as being particularly robust, its more like an example than a production-ready library)
Well, it still would require a rewrite, which someone would have to do. It's would be easier if CNMAT would change the license. The talk about their code being "open source" on the website, which isn't correct with that licence.
ciao
-
Andrew (Andy) W. Schmeder -
d.lj -
Frank Barknecht -
guenter geiger -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Marc Lavallée