just a quick update on the behind the scenes work i have been doing to see if we can get [expr] under the BSD license.
Firstly, i have been in contact on several occasions with Apple, in regards to their position on LGPL software in their apps. They have really given me the runaround, and even after many mails and calls to different departments, my request of a yes/no answer on LGPL has always left me simply being shoved off to another department, who won't give me a yes/no either. They are basically telling me that if i need to know this simple fact, that i need to hire a lawyer. Which is ludicrous.
So, that's the "discouraging" news.
The not so discouraging news, is that i have spoken with a few people involved with the jMax software, upon which the expr code is based. I have of course, also been speaking with Shahrokh Yadegari, and the good news is that i have yet to speak to anyone who is not in favour of helping with a change to the BSD license. In the best case, we might be able to get permission for the applicable jMax code to be relicensed under the BSD. This would mean that no code re-write would be necessary, and the change to BSD would be quite smooth (hopefully!)
Anyway, it's a slow process, waiting for email replies, and then sending off the next mail...but there appears to be some light coming from the end of the tunnel. We're just not exactly which source that light comes from right now, but hopefully all will clear up eventually.
I doubt we'll be able to get this matter fully resolved by the end of this year, but hopefully when the winter break is over we can see more clearly what steps need to be taken.
From: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com To: PD List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 11:55 AM Subject: [PD] [expr] license issue (update)
just a quick update on the behind the scenes work i have been doing to see if we can get [expr] under the BSD license.
Firstly, i have been in contact on several occasions with Apple, in regards to their position on LGPL software in their apps. They have really given me the runaround, and even after many mails and calls to different departments, my request of a yes/no answer on LGPL has always left me simply being shoved off to another department, who won't give me a yes/no either. They are basically telling me that if i need to know this simple fact, that i need to hire a lawyer. Which is ludicrous.
So, that's the "discouraging" news.
The not so discouraging news, is that i have spoken with a few people involved with the jMax software, upon which the expr code is based. I have of course, also been speaking with Shahrokh Yadegari, and the good news is that i have yet to speak to anyone who is not in favour of helping with a change to the BSD license. In the best case, we might be able to get permission for the applicable jMax code to be relicensed under the BSD. This would mean that no code re-write would be necessary, and the change to BSD would be quite smooth (hopefully!)
IRCAM is listed as the copyright holder at the top of the relevant c files, so wouldn't you need explicit permission
directly from IRCAM to change the license?
(You also need to contact devs who added functionality and fixed any bugs in the expr code.)
-Jonathan
Anyway, it's a slow process, waiting for email replies, and then sending off the next mail...but there appears to be some light coming from the end of the tunnel. We're just not exactly which source that light comes from right now, but hopefully all will clear up eventually.
I doubt we'll be able to get this matter fully resolved by the end of this year, but hopefully when the winter break is over we can see more clearly what steps need to be taken.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2011-12-03 à 09:35:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
(You also need to contact devs who added functionality and fixed any bugs in the expr code.)
Those depend on whether those people agreed, explicitly or implicitly, to give up their copyright.
I don't think anyone claims copyright on correcting a small typo, for example.
Marvin said something about implicitly giving up copyright, in the previous big thread about licenses (in sep+oct).
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com; PD List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [PD] [expr] license issue (update)
Le 2011-12-03 à 09:35:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
(You also need to contact devs who added functionality and fixed any bugs
in the expr code.)
Those depend on whether those people agreed, explicitly or implicitly, to give up their copyright.
I don't think anyone claims copyright on correcting a small typo, for example.
Marvin said something about implicitly giving up copyright, in the previous big thread about licenses (in sep+oct).
Well, one can either contact everyone who has ever contributed to the code and get an explicit "ok", or one can pay a lawyer to explain whether what a non-lawyer wrote on a list back in sep-oct actually matches up with the law.
-Jonathan
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
Le 2011-12-03 à 12:07:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
Well, one can either contact everyone who has ever contributed to the code and get an explicit "ok", or one can pay a lawyer to explain whether what a non-lawyer wrote on a list back in sep-oct actually matches up with the law.
Match up which country's laws ?
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 02:35:26PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
I don't think anyone claims copyright on correcting a small typo, for
example.
There are all kinds of crazy people in the world who claim things they don't have the right to, but to pursue the matter ad absurdum, any lawsuit over a small typo is going to be thrown out for failing a de minimis test.
Nevertheless, I understand wanting to err on the side of safety. Politics and courtesy probably play a larger role here than actual legal concerns. And I certainly agree with Jonathan that IANAL. :)
Marvin said something about implicitly giving up copyright, in the
previous big thread about licenses (in sep+oct).
I must have said something about granting implicit license under the license of the project when you provide a patch, which is definitely not the same thing as implicitly giving up copyright.
Marvin Humphrey
Le 2011-12-03 à 14:06:00, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
There are all kinds of crazy people in the world who claim things they don't have the right to, but to pursue the matter ad absurdum, any lawsuit over a small typo is going to be thrown out for failing a de minimis test.
Does that still cost the defendent some money ?
Do you have an anti-SLAPP law yet in your country and/or state, and does it get applied ? (Where do you live ?)
I must have said something about granting implicit license under the license of the project when you provide a patch, which is definitely not the same thing as implicitly giving up copyright.
Oh. I didn't know that you only meant the license.
But there are usually no copyright notices for typo correction. In that case, if there is a default implicit copyright, this sounds like it would have to do with the international treaty of 1978... is that right ?
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
----- Original Message -----
From: Marvin Humphrey marvin@rectangular.com To: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Cc: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com; PD List pd-list@iem.at; i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [PD] [expr] license issue (update)
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 02:35:26PM -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
I don't think anyone claims copyright on correcting a small typo, for example.
There are all kinds of crazy people in the world who claim things they don't have the right to, but to pursue the matter ad absurdum, any lawsuit over a small typo is going to be thrown out for failing a de minimis test.
Nevertheless, I understand wanting to err on the side of safety. Politics and courtesy probably play a larger role here than actual legal concerns. And I certainly agree with Jonathan that IANAL. :)
Marvin said something about implicitly giving up copyright, in the previous big thread about licenses (in sep+oct).
I must have said something about granting implicit license under the license of the project when you provide a patch, which is definitely not the same thing as implicitly giving up copyright.
Right. I believe the linux kernel devs explicitly inherit licenses with a "signed-off-by" tag that gets send along with the code of the patch. In this case or with Pd, the dev is making code in the patch public under the license of the code to which the patch is going to be applied. But the dev is not making any kind of agreement to give up their copyright in either case. (Check out the responses on the kernel dev list to the guy who offered $50,000 for a license to a snapshot of the kernel and you'll see how quickly contributors remember which parts of a project is under their copyright and _not_ subject to a license change.)
Anyway, the bigger question is whether one needs IRCAM's permission to re-license the code. If so, it's probably _way_ easier just to code a new version. If not, contacting the handful of developers who have worked on expr might be a workable solution.
-Jonathan
Marvin Humphrey
If not, contacting
the handful of developers who have worked on expr might be a workable solution.<<
that's what i HAVE done.
at the moment, it seems that we still need to contact IRCAM directly, but we just need to wait for Shahrokh to identify which jMax code was used.
jMax I want that year back.
From: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] On Behalf Of i go bananas Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 8:56 PM To: Jonathan Wilkes Cc: PD List Subject: Re: [PD] [expr] license issue (update)
If not, contacting
the handful of developers who have worked on expr might be a workable solution.<<
that's what i HAVE done.
at the moment, it seems that we still need to contact IRCAM directly, but we just need to wait for Shahrokh to identify which jMax code was used.
From: "Pagano, Patrick" pat@digitalworlds.ufl.edu To: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com; Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: PD List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 11:46 AM Subject: RE: [PD] [expr] license issue (update)
jMax I want that year back.
I don't understand what that means.
What does that mean?
-Jonathan
From:pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] On Behalf Of i go bananas Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 8:56 PM To: Jonathan Wilkes Cc: PD List Subject: Re: [PD] [expr] license issue (update)
If not, contacting
the handful of developers who have worked on expr might be a workable solution.<<
that's what i HAVE done.
at the moment, it seems that we still need to contact IRCAM directly, but we just need to wait for Shahrokh to identify which jMax code was used.
-
i go bananas -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Marvin Humphrey -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Pagano, Patrick