Dang, linux is nice for the proto typing.

Dang, linux is nice for the proto typing.

Simmons
Simmons

August 7th, 2017, 10:36 pm #1

In a weekend I've gotten more done than I did in windows (.net specifically) in a month.

I do have a concern though: With all these dependencies, most opensource, how does this affect copyrights on my code? Like if I want to sell software developed on/for linux. Are there closed source equivalent drivers / libraries I can purchase in linux?

Quote
Share

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 9:24 pm

August 8th, 2017, 1:04 am #2

Check the license on each library. If they're LGPL, you should be okay. If they're GPL with a linking exception, you should be okay. If they're BSD or X11 or CC attribution, you're fine. If they're plain GPL with no exception, or CC share-alike, then use something else.

The GNU website has detailed FAQs.

Regards, michael
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

August 8th, 2017, 1:19 am #3

In a weekend I've gotten more done than I did in windows (.net specifically) in a month.

I do have a concern though: With all these dependencies, most opensource, how does this affect copyrights on my code? Like if I want to sell software developed on/for linux. Are there closed source equivalent drivers / libraries I can purchase in linux?
"With all these dependencies, most opensource, how does this affect copyrights on my code?"


As you would anyway, you hold the copyright to your changes. If you want to distributes those changes you authored WITH the rest of the code they belong to, then you will need to retain the same license to the part you didn't write.

Code that you write is yours. Code that you distribute with GPL code you need to distribute under the same license.

If you use that code you wrote somewhere else, you can use a different license-- this is where it gets complex.

Yes, it's OK to release your code under another license.

But, people that have the same code YOU distributed with GPL software are entitled to keep using that code under the GPL.

"With" means that is intrinsically tied to the code--

* the author of the GPL (Stallman) says this means if you call the Linux kernel, which is GPL, the code that calls it must also be GPL.

* the author of the Linux kernel (Torvalds) says otherwise-- so far no court has come between their two interpretations. The Linux kernel is not the sole work of Torvalds in many years, so it's not simply up to him. (Far from it.)

NOW, when it comes to selling it-- then it becomes slightly easier.


"Like if I want to sell software developed on/for linux. Are there closed source equivalent drivers / libraries I can purchase in linux?"

You can actually sell ANY software that is "Open Source" or "Free software."

If you get a permit to setup a lemonade stand, and you also have permission (from the town/city) to sell copies of software at a lemonade stand (you never know, towns can be sticklers) then you are free to sell copies of GNU/Linux all day long. All day long! Everyday! Under certain conditions, none of which require asking the authors.

That's true of the GPL, the BSD/MIT/X11 license, it's really true of any license that meets the OSD/DFSG/FSD (Open Source Definition, Debian Free Software Guidelines, which the OSD is based on, Free Software Definition by the FSF.)

Commercial use is alright.

What you probably wanted to know was-- can you create Proprietary-licensed versions that do not include source code or a Free/Libre/Open Source license...

Yes. Apple does that all the time. However, some software uses "Copyleft" licensing like the GPL, which is not as friendly towards your proprietary scheme, for reasons that only dishonest or naive advocates think are unreasonable (they're trying to make software that stays free. Pete! That's a straight line for you.)

But not everyone shares their philosophy. On the Apple/Open source side, there is "permissive" licensing which caters directly to your proprietary scheme.

Both "Copyleft" Free software licenses and "Permissive" Free software licenses ARE both: Free software licenses, and "Open source."

The difference is that Permissive licenses can be made proprietary, but Copyleft is designed to discourage/disallow proprietary (mostly.)

AND IN SOME INSTANCES where all the authors are say: a company-- you can even license "Free software" under a secondary, proprietary scheme for a price, along the lines you described. Some will frown upon it philosophically, but it is not illegal.


None of the above constitutes legal advice, if you want to know what it is, It is a basic summary of years of news stories and wikipedia articles, not to mention the official website of the GPL-- which you may prefer: gnu.org (Though the website is actually more wordy!)
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

August 8th, 2017, 1:20 am #4

Check the license on each library. If they're LGPL, you should be okay. If they're GPL with a linking exception, you should be okay. If they're BSD or X11 or CC attribution, you're fine. If they're plain GPL with no exception, or CC share-alike, then use something else.

The GNU website has detailed FAQs.

Regards, michael
Quote
Share

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 9:24 pm

August 8th, 2017, 1:50 am #5

* :-)
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

August 8th, 2017, 2:01 am #6

Check the license on each library. If they're LGPL, you should be okay. If they're GPL with a linking exception, you should be okay. If they're BSD or X11 or CC attribution, you're fine. If they're plain GPL with no exception, or CC share-alike, then use something else.

The GNU website has detailed FAQs.

Regards, michael
IMHO, another good FAQ ishttps://opensource.org/faq

While primarily focused on open source, it also touches on closed source stuff (e.g. is free software the same as open source?)
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

August 8th, 2017, 3:11 am #7

"Same, but different." "Same, but less fanboyish."

IMO it's like Microsoft Vs. Apple. One tries to look cooler, both wil find inventive ways for you to shoot yourself in the foot while they sell you ideology.

At least it's pretty good ideology. But the Exclusive trademark of OSI is: "If it's corporate, it's not ideological."

Yeah because sucking up to corporate isn't a religion, it's a "way of life."

Both like to take little potshots at each other. Both will try to steer you towards a path-- both will tell you it's the one you want, and the OSI likes to be vague so you appear to have more options, even though "it's the same, really." Yeah, close enough for the guys that showed up later. "Same but better!" As long as they decide what better is, they don't have to try too hard.

Having dealt with both online, both are annoying. At least the FSF is more honest.

They have moments though where I really don't know what they think they're doing. OSI says: "join us, then!" No way. I was "Open Source" first. I decided the real thing was better. Of course they're "free" to be "open" if that's their thing.
Quote
Share

Simmons
Simmons

August 8th, 2017, 9:17 pm #8

"With all these dependencies, most opensource, how does this affect copyrights on my code?"


As you would anyway, you hold the copyright to your changes. If you want to distributes those changes you authored WITH the rest of the code they belong to, then you will need to retain the same license to the part you didn't write.

Code that you write is yours. Code that you distribute with GPL code you need to distribute under the same license.

If you use that code you wrote somewhere else, you can use a different license-- this is where it gets complex.

Yes, it's OK to release your code under another license.

But, people that have the same code YOU distributed with GPL software are entitled to keep using that code under the GPL.

"With" means that is intrinsically tied to the code--

* the author of the GPL (Stallman) says this means if you call the Linux kernel, which is GPL, the code that calls it must also be GPL.

* the author of the Linux kernel (Torvalds) says otherwise-- so far no court has come between their two interpretations. The Linux kernel is not the sole work of Torvalds in many years, so it's not simply up to him. (Far from it.)

NOW, when it comes to selling it-- then it becomes slightly easier.


"Like if I want to sell software developed on/for linux. Are there closed source equivalent drivers / libraries I can purchase in linux?"

You can actually sell ANY software that is "Open Source" or "Free software."

If you get a permit to setup a lemonade stand, and you also have permission (from the town/city) to sell copies of software at a lemonade stand (you never know, towns can be sticklers) then you are free to sell copies of GNU/Linux all day long. All day long! Everyday! Under certain conditions, none of which require asking the authors.

That's true of the GPL, the BSD/MIT/X11 license, it's really true of any license that meets the OSD/DFSG/FSD (Open Source Definition, Debian Free Software Guidelines, which the OSD is based on, Free Software Definition by the FSF.)

Commercial use is alright.

What you probably wanted to know was-- can you create Proprietary-licensed versions that do not include source code or a Free/Libre/Open Source license...

Yes. Apple does that all the time. However, some software uses "Copyleft" licensing like the GPL, which is not as friendly towards your proprietary scheme, for reasons that only dishonest or naive advocates think are unreasonable (they're trying to make software that stays free. Pete! That's a straight line for you.)

But not everyone shares their philosophy. On the Apple/Open source side, there is "permissive" licensing which caters directly to your proprietary scheme.

Both "Copyleft" Free software licenses and "Permissive" Free software licenses ARE both: Free software licenses, and "Open source."

The difference is that Permissive licenses can be made proprietary, but Copyleft is designed to discourage/disallow proprietary (mostly.)

AND IN SOME INSTANCES where all the authors are say: a company-- you can even license "Free software" under a secondary, proprietary scheme for a price, along the lines you described. Some will frown upon it philosophically, but it is not illegal.


None of the above constitutes legal advice, if you want to know what it is, It is a basic summary of years of news stories and wikipedia articles, not to mention the official website of the GPL-- which you may prefer: gnu.org (Though the website is actually more wordy!)
I make a video game that uses either of those libraries, and I want to sell it, maybe on Steam. What are the implications of using a library like that?
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

August 8th, 2017, 10:19 pm #9

Really it should be fine, you can ask this question on the SDL forum for a clearer answer. But we are talking aboute licenses.

SDL is a permissive free software license. Generally speaking, that means you can use it with non-free software. (Not that I endorse doing that, but the fact is, you can. I have mixed feelings about developing for Steam. I would probably prefer Steam to any other large commercial platform. It's not the commercial aspect, by the way. In fact my gripes with Steam are not many.)

While going to Wikipedia for legal information is twice foolish, for an easy understanding of zlib before you start getting real information:

"The distribution of a modified version of the software is subject to the following restrictions:

[*] The authorship of the original software must not be misrepresented,

[*] Altered source versions must not be misrepresented as being the original software, and

[*] The license notice must not be removed from source distributions.

[*] The license does not require source code to be made available if distributing binary code."


In short: have fun. Note that older SDL versions are LGPL licensed, and while that might work out fine too, LGPL is different than the license SDL uses these days.

I honestly think the reason they switched to zlib is to make it easier for you to do what you're doing-- but that's really only a guess.


ALL Free software licenses allow commercial use, by the way-- including selling copies. If it doesn't allow that sort of use, it is not free software. If it uses that license, it is. It's that simple.

Where it gets complex is UNDER WHAT TERMS you can sell it. Whether you have to include source code, etc. Under LGPL is it trickier.

Under the current state of things, a lot of people can decide on permissive licenses like Zlib (I also use permissive free software licenses) but it is possiblet that if copyleft free software licenses fell out of use entirely, that fewer companies would make source available-- there would be less of this stuff for us to use.

So while I don't promote any copyleft licenses (other than by using software that includes them) I don't knock them entirely. They're more complicated, but that doesn't mean they aren't serving an important purpose that ultimately benefits both of us.

If I were developing for Steam I would stick to permissive licenses as much as possible. I mean, For libraries I didn't write, etc.
Quote
Share