Hi.
I apologize if this is off-topic, but the more I read the more confused I get.

I put Rationale version 0.1 on Sourceforge a while back and registered
the project as GPL.  I liked the idea that my program wouldn't turn up
somewhere without me knowing it or being acknowledged.  However, I
didn't change my code or add any license text to it, I just uploaded
my local version...
Version 0.1 used Tix (an extension of Tk), Python, and Csound.  All of
these are released under more permissive licenses, which makes sense
as all of them are for the most part programming tools rather than
strictly end-user software like mine (and believe me, few developers
would want to spend time with my code).

Now I'm vacillating between GPL and BSD, or something else more
permissive.  I'm honestly more concerned about whether the GPL could
prevent *me* from doing what I like with my software later, and the
GNU freenode channel doesn't seem to think I should be concerned.  I
think I'm okay with forbidding closed-source modifications, I just
don't want to be told I can't make another version later and (try to)
sell it.  It seems like the GPL is designed for people who would scoff
at the idea that I would even consider doing that.

Now I see in the text of the GPL parts that seem to say I need to even
make the legal notices clearly visible in the user interface.  I
suppose I'd also have to include legal info for Python, Csound, and
Tk?  Actually, I also use the Csound Soundfont and OSC opcodes... so I
need to check all that business too?  And this could go perhaps under
Help->License?

(I've now modified Rationale to use ONLY Tkinter for the GUI, no Tix,
and in fact only the parts available in Tk8.4, since many users are
likely to be unwilling to chase after dependencies- thanks to the
accident that I posted a sample using Tix here asking for help, and
worked out replacement widgets from pure Tkinter, I realized I could
do that with the entire interface, which pushed version 0.2 far closer
to being ready.)

As of now the license is the main thing keeping me from putting
version 0.2 up and washing my hands of it (and getting back to writing
music).  Can anyone give me some advice?

Thanks a lot.
-Chuckk

-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com

Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> I apologize if this is off-topic, but the more I read the more confused I get.
>
>   

Understandable. The GPL is like no other software license, and a close 
reading is required to understand it.

You retain full copyright, and you can terminate the GPL coverage at any 
time. In other words, your software remains your software. You can even 
decide to shaft the GPL and go completely commercial, *but* your 
previous GPL'd work will stay covered by that license, i.e. you can't 
recall source code packages et cetera that have already been released 
under the license.

Remember, the GPL is foremost a license for the protection of users. 
This is in contrast to the EULAs of most commercial software which 
designate the rights of the producer. In most of those agreements the 
user's rights are few and of minimal concern. I do not argue whether 
this is a good thing, it's just how it is. Commercial producers are 
rightfully concerned about unauthorized distribution of their work. Free 
software producers tend to be more concerned about the viability and 
longevity of their codebases.

Btw, are you looking at GPL 3 or GPL 2 ? There are significant 
differences between them. Also, have you considered the LGPL ? Bear in 
mind that under a BSD license users have NO compulsion to return code 
improvements to the source tree. They are completely free to use your 
software for any purposes, including commercial sales, and you get 
nothing, no return on the source improvements and no money from the 
commercial exploitation. Again, I don't argue whether that's good or 
bad, and the BSD license is perfectly suitable for a variety of projects 
(think OSX).

Also, all you need to do is place the GPL itself in a file named COPYING 
and include it in your source package. Source code needs to be publicly 
available, and that's about it for the major considerations (other than 
linking and its problems). I don't recall that you have to advertise GPL 
adherence in your UI, that sounds plenty bogue to me.

If you have more specific concerns about the GPL you would be 
well-advised to contact the Free Software Foundation 
(http://www.fsf.org/) with your questions.

HTH,

dp

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Felipe Sateler  wrote:
> El 16/03/09 21:48 Chuckk Hubbard escribió:
>
>> I
>> think I'm okay with forbidding closed-source modifications, I just
>> don't want to be told I can't make another version later and (try to)
>> sell it.  It seems like the GPL is designed for people who would scoff
>> at the idea that I would even consider doing that.
>
> Ehm, I see at least RedHat, SuSE, Trolltech (now Nokia), MySQL and loads of
> others making money out of (L)GPLed software. How do you think the GPL
> prevents you from selling your software?

Well it seems more like the basic laws of capitalism, more than the
GPL, would prevent me from selling something people can get for free.
I've given this some thought, though, and as my program is tailored
for a very specific microtonal system which is not very popular, I
think it would be detrimental to ask for money; it would lessen the
number of people who learn about this system.  I'm more imagining the
possibility- much later- of creating a more involved music production
program rather than what I have now, which is basically a UI to tell
Csound what frequencies to play (a description that belies how hard it
was)

>> I
>> suppose I'd also have to include legal info for Python, Csound, and
>> Tk?  Actually, I also use the Csound Soundfont and OSC opcodes... so I
>> need to check all that business too?
>
> No, and no. It's Python, Csound, TK, etc business, unless they explicitly
> require you to do so.

As I recall, the VST parts of Csound were the only part that caused
any concern with distribution of Csound, and my program doesn't use
those.  But I've been lazy about checking these things in the past,
and I swore I'd be more conscientious this time.

>> As of now the license is the main thing keeping me from putting
>> version 0.2 up and washing my hands of it (and getting back to writing
>> music).  Can anyone give me some advice?
>
> I don't see how the GPL restricts you. Could you elaborate on that?

I didn't mean this particular license so much as the process of
understanding and choosing a license is what is holding me back.

Thank you very much for helping me get this all straight.

-Chuckk

-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com

Thanks a lot Dave.
I haven't yet checked the differences between GPL2 and GPL3.  I'll
look closely at them.

> You retain full copyright, and you can terminate the GPL coverage at any
> time. In other words, your software remains your software. You can even


> Also, all you need to do is place the GPL itself in a file named COPYING and
> include it in your source package. Source code needs to be publicly

These were probably the things I was most confused about.  Both sound
good to me.  But as far as linking, the thing is that *I'm* linking to
other software, and I want to make sure I give the necessary
shout-outs.  As regards Csound specifically, I'm wondering if I have
to go looking after Soundfont and OSC stuff, or if I can treat it all
as part of Csound.  The actual source of my program has text for
Csound instruments using some of those opcodes.

Thanks again, it sounds like GPL will be fine after all.

-Chuckk

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Dave Phillips  wrote:
> Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
>>
>> I apologize if this is off-topic, but the more I read the more confused I
>> get.
>>
>>
>
> Understandable. The GPL is like no other software license, and a close
> reading is required to understand it.
>
> You retain full copyright, and you can terminate the GPL coverage at any
> time. In other words, your software remains your software. You can even
> decide to shaft the GPL and go completely commercial, *but* your previous
> GPL'd work will stay covered by that license, i.e. you can't recall source
> code packages et cetera that have already been released under the license.
>
> Remember, the GPL is foremost a license for the protection of users. This is
> in contrast to the EULAs of most commercial software which designate the
> rights of the producer. In most of those agreements the user's rights are
> few and of minimal concern. I do not argue whether this is a good thing,
> it's just how it is. Commercial producers are rightfully concerned about
> unauthorized distribution of their work. Free software producers tend to be
> more concerned about the viability and longevity of their codebases.
>
> Btw, are you looking at GPL 3 or GPL 2 ? There are significant differences
> between them. Also, have you considered the LGPL ? Bear in mind that under a
> BSD license users have NO compulsion to return code improvements to the
> source tree. They are completely free to use your software for any purposes,
> including commercial sales, and you get nothing, no return on the source
> improvements and no money from the commercial exploitation. Again, I don't
> argue whether that's good or bad, and the BSD license is perfectly suitable
> for a variety of projects (think OSX).
>
> Also, all you need to do is place the GPL itself in a file named COPYING and
> include it in your source package. Source code needs to be publicly
> available, and that's about it for the major considerations (other than
> linking and its problems). I don't recall that you have to advertise GPL
> adherence in your UI, that sounds plenty bogue to me.
>
> If you have more specific concerns about the GPL you would be well-advised
> to contact the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org/) with your
> questions.
>
> HTH,
>
> dp
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>



-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com

Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> ... As regards Csound specifically, I'm wondering if I have
> to go looking after Soundfont and OSC stuff, or if I can treat it all
> as part of Csound.  The actual source of my program has text for
> Csound instruments using some of those opcodes.
>
>   
Csound uses liblo as its OSC library, liblo is GPL V2.

SF2's legalities are unknown to me. Have fun learning. :)

Best,

dp

Chuckk Hubbard wrote:

> Well it seems more like the basic laws of capitalism, more than the
> GPL, would prevent me from selling something people can get for free.

Not necessarily.

For instance I am sole author a library that I released under the
GPL. Its free for people  to use *under the terms of the GPL*.
For people who can't use it under the GPL, they can pay me a modest
one  off license fee to get a commercial use license.

Cheers,
Erik
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a
protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor
and when was the last time you needed one?" -- Tom Cargill

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Chuckk Hubbard
 wrote:

>
> Well it seems more like the basic laws of capitalism, more than the
> GPL, would prevent me from selling something people can get for free.
> I've given this some thought, though, and as my program is tailored
> for a very specific microtonal system which is not very popular, I
> think it would be detrimental to ask for money; it would lessen the
> number of people who learn about this system.  I'm more imagining the
> possibility- much later- of creating a more involved music production
> program rather than what I have now, which is basically a UI to tell
> Csound what frequencies to play (a description that belies how hard it
> was)
>

This is also what some companies do to make money off of open source
software. Have a base package which is free software and make closed
add-ons.
You also need to check the licenses of your dependencies. If they are
LGPL, you can link to them dynamically without having to distribute
your source code, only the changes you make to the lgpl library. That
is why this license makes sense mostly for libraries, not
applications.
I've been thinking about this lately, namely the issues when csound
which is LGPL uses a GPL library. I've almost finished adding support
for the -Ma flag to the alsa module, but I've used code which is GPL,
so I would have to license my file GPL. If csound uses that file, it
actually becomes GPL as well through my file. This has no practical
implications to ordinary users, but it has serious implications for
developers.
I didn't remember that liblo is GPL... The osc opcode plugins should
be distributed on a separate package since it is actually misleading
and people will be bound by the GPL, not the LGPL.

Cheers,
Andrés