|
| From: | britt creamer |
| Subject: | Licensing Issues |
| Date: | Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:44:18 +1100 (EST) |
First, GNUstep is a fantastic product! GORM is awesome! Thanks!
However, from the commercial world, there are two issues that I would like resolved.
First Issue- GNUstep core (or base with back and gui- the basic libraries). I've had many discussions with my Intellectual Property Counsel in which our counsel feels "freeware" as "viral", and "it can be a mix bag of goods". This is because of the mixing of free source code with proprietary software creates risk: the threat of license violations. After checking GNUstep software (using a grep command searching for Copyright), I found four files that represents my legal counsels concerns:
base/Source/NSNotificationQueue.m has Copyright 1995, 1996 Ovidiu Predescu and Mircea Oancea
gui/Images/GNUstep_Images_Copyright has Copyright 1997 Andrew Lindesay
gui/Source/NSBezierPath.m has Copyright 1998 Raph Levien
gui/Source/tiff.m has 2 Copyrights of concern: 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 Sam Leffler
1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Now my search was not extensive by any means, and I hope to run Black Ducks protexIP software on this (one day) for a better reading. The concern of my counsel is that even though the most recent Copyrights of the software state "Free Software Foundation" (FSF), any other Copyrights in the source code entitles ownership to another entity along with FSF. Thus, they have rights and ability to create a lawsuit if (whoever's name is in the code) is desiring/seeking compensation for a commercial product using GNUstep.
Question for First Issue:
Is it possible to have all non FSF Copyright names removed from all GNUstep code for this concern?
Second Issue- GORM. It's a great tool! As an Interface Building tool that is licensed under the GPL, my counsel (along with many engineers from many other programs) believes that GORM (and tools like GORM) can not be used because we (a commercial company) would have to release our proprietary software along with releasing GORM, keeping it free. In the GPL (GNU General Public License) it states under Terms and Conditions for Copying, Distribution and Modification .
"0. This License The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or derivative work under the copyright law: that is to say
3. a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains "
Building a new application with GORM, using the objects (like a button object that comes from GORM), and using the definitions listed in the GPL, my new application tool would fall under the GPL, in which I am legally bound to ship my new applications source code (built by GORM). Unfortunately, my new application (being in the commercial world) is proprietary, and I can not ship my source code (the GUI interface portion that GORM assisted me in and my methods which define the proprietary tool). And that's my problem.
Question for Issue Two:
Is it possible (only for the GORM application) to change the license to LGPL?
Or
Is it possible to change the GPL to allow all Interface Builders (IDE's) the ability create new applications in which the user does not have to release (to the world, to keep it free) their proprietary code?
I would appreciate any assistance anyone in the GNUstep world could give (or within the GNU world).
Notices:
- Black Duck protexIP is a trademark of Black Duck Software in the United States, other countries, or both. For more information please refer to http://www.blackducksoftware.com
- also the names listed above in the copyright example, they may or may not be spelled/listed correctly, please use the above as an example only. The example comes from a version of GNUstep downloaded during the summer of 2004.
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |