Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-09-2015, 01:12 PM   #16
SolarLiner
It's necessary, TARS.
 
SolarLiner's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 Versioning problems?
Getting back to Face's post here. Thinking about it, there is a problem that with the Multistage 2015 project still in progress, if we include one version with addons, we'll end up with multiple versions on different installs.

This is a legit reason to not allow redistribution of the DLL, however we should keep it simple for the end user to install addons.
This is where a addon manager would come in handy. Something like the CKAN in KSP.

Good job on the release though!
SolarLiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-09-2015, 03:43 PM   #17
fred18
Addon Developer

Default

Guys, relevant to the license, i just want to keep things as simple as possible. If any kind of license generates mess, i'll simply release the code without specifying anything.

Relevant to SolarLiner I agree with him. As soon as the basic new stuff is finished (not far from now) I will release the module on OH and I will write in documentation that is strongly recommended to give the link of the download instead of redistributing the dll, in order to be sure to always have the newest version.

Anyway, thanks for everything guys!

As an update: the first implementation of the multistage peg seems to work. A bit of tuning and i will release on OH the 1.0 version of the module.
fred18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-09-2015, 05:25 PM   #18
Lisias
Space Traveller Wanna-be
 
Lisias's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 That thing about GPL not applicable for add-ons is mostly propaganda IMHO. It has long been established that plugins under GPL are not suddenly forcing the environment they are in to open up under GPL, too, because if it were so, every software on Windows released under GPL would require Windows itself to be forced under GPL, too. After all, almost every windows binary is linking to some closed source binary (the WINAPI), right?
Nope. The GPL states that the frontier is the EXECUTABLE.

Moreover:

From the Gnu Site:
Quote:
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program? (#GPLPluginsInNF)
If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.
So there's no problem with GPL programs running on Windows neither.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 If someone really comes up and tries to force Martin to open up the source of Orbiter, just because fred18 made Multistage2015 released under GPLv3, I am sure that every court in the UK will laugh in that person's face for this kind of stupid bullying.
You (and that someone) are holding, I mean , got it wrong. In this specific case, the GPL violator is the guy who released the code under the GPL! He is liable to be sued by intentionally released a GPL program that can not be used without violating the GPL, this guy will be the one in trouble with EFF and FSF, not Martin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 But to be honest, I can't care less if it is GPL or LGPL or even MIT, as long as the source code (and the resulting binaries) remains open for people to continue the work if the bus factor hits again. His previous distribution restrictions clearly did not allow for that, hence my suggestion.
I care because I don't intent to violate anybody's license if I could avoid.

It would not prevent me to use the code or binary, but I would be more picky at giving the due credits, as I don't want to be bothered by people claiming GPL violations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 So let me get that straight: you are claiming that everybody releasing and/or distributing an Orbiter addon under GPL is doing so illegally?
No. The license is. Sorry.

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred18 View Post
 Guys, relevant to the license, i just want to keep things as simple as possible. If any kind of license generates mess, i'll simply release the code without specifying anything.
You will need a license to protect your name if anyone decides to overtake your project, or fork it to his own needs and when a problem that he creates rises, you can claim it's not your fault.

The less problematic and more permissive license I know that you can safely use is the BSD: it mainly says "do what you want with this code, just don't remove the copyright headers neither distribute it using my or the project's name".

And this is the reason that anybody can use FreeBSD code, but just some dudes could create OpenBSD and NetBSD projects - if you try to create another clone called MyBSD, you can be prosecuted by copyright violation : the BSD guys don't want you making money with their names, just with the code.

I think this will do for you, if you don't care about who and how your code is used.
Lisias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015, 07:07 PM   #19
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisias View Post
 No. The license is. Sorry.
Which would make that a serious issue. If this opinion of you (and Jarmonik, I guess) is shared by Martin and the forum crew, it would mean that many addons are "illegal" in the sense of the forum rules. This would also mean that they need to be removed or re-licensed.
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015, 07:38 PM   #20
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

If I remember correctly, the main problem for the GPL is source code being useless if depending on proprietary APIs. That's partially a problem with Orbiter, since its API is freely available, but proprietary and its freedom thus not guaranteed.

Yes, its theoretical, but important.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015, 07:43 PM   #21
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 Yes, its theoretical, but important.
SSU is released under GPLv2, if I am not mistaken. How do you guys think about your license in this regard? Do you plan to change it due to this?
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015, 07:45 PM   #22
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 SSU is released under GPLv2, if I am not mistaken. How do you guys think about your license in this regard? Do you plan to change it due to this?
Right now, its a lesser problem on our agenda, but yes, we need to review our license. Actually, we would need to review it from time to time anyway. The first selected license is rarely the best. The GPL does for example not work at all for our assets.

The problem is simple: The GPL is defined by the FSF. The FSF is dogmatic towards their concept of open-source. A free API and free software, that is not also open-source, is dogmatic problem for them, that in their concept can't exist.

The problem is also the same for the Linux kernel and required some strong clarifications because of the GPU drivers.

Last edited by Urwumpe; 08-09-2015 at 07:49 PM.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015, 07:46 PM   #23
Lisias
Space Traveller Wanna-be
 
Lisias's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmonik View Post
 Not sure if LIBAV and Orbiter Add-Ons can be compared. If someone creates a vessel add-on for the Orbiter under LGPL and I would like to take that code and transform it to X-Plane add-on. Then, it would require a fundamental rewriting of several sections to make it X-Plane compatible. Could such a work simply be called as a library that it used by X-Plane ? [This is only an example. No intentions to do that]

Does libav require rewriting when attached to a different application ?
LIBAV is a library that receives a data stream from the host, decodes it and gives back another data stream to be drawn to the screen. There're further inputs, as color saturation, contrast and brightness parameters that can be inputted by the host application, or perhaps by controls from a fourth part programmer.

Sound can be chained into a series of plugins to add effects or decode 3D stream data.

Basically, it's exactly what our vessels do: receives a data stream from Orbiter, and issues back another (by using Orbiter callbacks).

No library requires rewriting to be relicensed - it's enough and sufficient that all copyrights holders agree on re-releasing the code using another license - dual licensing is not uncommon.

However, if you are not the sole copyright holder you must write your own version of the intended code in order to do what you please with your codetree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmonik View Post
 I am not exactly sure how should I understand the statement but it sounds like an Orbiter add-on under LGPL would need to do it's job regardless whether the Orbiter (Host application) is present or not. If that's true then a library could not depend on host application.
Nope. The (L)GPL definition of LIBRARY is clearly stated in the license: a bucket of bytes that should be statically or dynamically linked into a host application in order to provide functionalities.

Your or mine concept of library does not apply - in order to use (or not) the (L)GPL, you must accept the (L)GPL concept of what is a LIBRARY.

Out of the scope of licensing, you can use your definition of what is a library - it doesn't matter from the license point of view.

Last edited by Lisias; 08-09-2015 at 11:38 PM.
Lisias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015, 07:54 PM   #24
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program? (#GPLPluginsInNF) If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.
(emphasis mine)

It appears like a simple exception for Orbiter and its libraries would make the GPL "legal" again. One could argue that the fact that the addon is made for Orbiter - and Orbiter preceding the addon in terms of creation date - would make it clear that this exception is implied, but obviously nitpicking is the lawyers daily bread, so better be safe than sorry.
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-09-2015, 07:56 PM   #25
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 (emphasis mine)

It appears like a simple exception for Orbiter and its libraries would make the GPL "legal" again. One could argue that the fact that the addon is made for Orbiter - and Orbiter preceding the addon in terms of creation date - would make it clear that this exception is implied, but obviously nitpicking is the lawyers daily bread, so better be safe than sorry.
Yes, but that does not automatically solve the problem for our assets.

Also, Orbiter add-ons are pretty much depending on the Visual C++ compiler and the Microsoft Windows SDK...
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015, 07:58 PM   #26
Lisias
Space Traveller Wanna-be
 
Lisias's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 Which would make that a serious issue. If this opinion of you (and Jarmonik, I guess) is shared by Martin and the forum crew, it would mean that many addons are "illegal" in the sense of the forum rules. This would also mean that they need to be removed or re-licensed.
I'm afraid this can happen.

And I'm pretty sure I'm right about this GPL thing, as I deal with Open Source projects since the first versions of Linux (V 0.99 at that time), and did exactly the same mistakes, and was corrected by people that does Open Source for living.

On the bright side, GPL violations prosecuting is very rare and highly biased by *INTENTION*. FSF and EFF lawyers are not patent trolls, no one will pursue Orbiter for this.

And since Orbiter always had been closed source since the beginning, it' my opinion it can be argued that the original author intended to use LGPL instead and perhaps some compromise can be reached - mainly because our modules links against other modules that are not GPL, and GPL3 imposes serious limitations on GPL code linking against non GPL code (GPL2 has some restrictions, but by far, not so harsh as GPL3) - being the reason I defending that, for the ones that wants to go GNU style, the LGPL is the license to be used.

---- IMPORTANT ------


Double licensing is not uncommon, au contraire, it's commonly used on commercial software that also is open source (and GPL!).

Perhaps we can argue that every Orbiter Hangar hosted addon are double licensed? One license allowing it to be downloaded and used in Orbiter (and nothing more), and another the author think it's best for covering his work rights (and do not denies the other license)?

Last edited by Lisias; 08-09-2015 at 08:08 PM. Reason: Important thing I remembered
Lisias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015, 07:58 PM   #27
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
 
Artlav's Avatar

Default

Only skimmed through the thread, but...

Why not use Fire And Forget "license": "Here is the code, here are the modules, have fun."?

Anything open-source is de-facto that, and it's not like module in question is something monetizeable or stealable in any case.
Artlav is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-09-2015, 08:02 PM   #28
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artlav View Post
 Anything open-source is de-facto that, and it's not like module in question is something monetizeable or stealable in any case.
Thats not true - like some Router manufacturers have discovered and how a small today unknown company like SCO experienced.

The main reason behind a GPL is to ensure a give and take economy. Who takes your code can not prevent easily, that you can not take something back from him.

Of course, its theory. Of course obfuscation and executable compression can make it hard to prove.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-09-2015, 08:04 PM   #29
Lisias
Space Traveller Wanna-be
 
Lisias's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 If I remember correctly, the main problem for the GPL is source code being useless if depending on proprietary APIs. That's partially a problem with Orbiter, since its API is freely available, but proprietary and its freedom thus not guaranteed.

Yes, its theoretical, but important.
Your problem is not with Orbiter, since it is the Host Application and you are the plugin - and the GPL states that you can make an exception for this (a nuisance, not a problem).

Your problem is that you also depends of other closed source modules that are not part of Orbiter, so in this case, *YOU* are the linking client, and this can be a problem with GPL3 (and, in a very lesser extension, GPL2).

LGPL doesn't have such limitations, as it was designed exactly by cases like ours.

And again, assuming that you want to keep using GNU style licenses: since you are the copyright holder of your work, you can relicense your codetree to any license that suits you better.

Double licensing is possible and very used commercially.

Last edited by Lisias; 08-09-2015 at 11:38 PM.
Lisias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015, 08:07 PM   #30
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisias View Post
 I'm afraid this can happen.
So you think Martin and the forum crew are sharing your opinion and GPL software is illegal in the sense of the forum rules?
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.