About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

Elmo Mäntynen
MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly. But not
every author of generally useful library style code agrees
(specifically, one awesome collection of primitives is strictly GPL).
Since I have no strong opinion on the most suitable license, I'm asking
for feedback from current and potential users of MCAD and openscad in
general.

1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
MCAD) and why.

2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner? It would apply
for openscad code as code, but what would be considered binary (the stl,
the printed part or the complete assembly) and what would be considered
as just what a user of the binary produces with the help of the binary
(as in, the license of Gimp has nothing to do with the license of the
art created with it, would a primitive be the same as a brush in gimp?).
Is there any practical distinction between GPL and LGPL in this sense?

3. I would personally like for my non-general (non-library) openscad
code to have a license that would prevent someone from creating a
physical product without distributing all the instructions for making
one under a similar/same license (like the needed electronics. Is this
too much to ask in general? Are there any precedence in using software
licenses for descriptions of hardware?


I could go on, but let's here what others have to say about this.

Maintainer of MCAD

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

Steven Dick


On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo <[hidden email]> wrote:
MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
[...]
1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
MCAD) and why.

Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to eventually, I think GPL is best.

2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?

I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is how it should be.

GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.

However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would affect the final part's license.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

Elmo Mäntynen


On 12/09/2010 02:19 PM, Steven Dick wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
>     but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
>
> [...]
>
>     1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
>     MCAD) and why.
>
>
> Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to
> eventually, I think GPL is best.

I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
OpenSCAD compiler.

Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.

So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
alternative implementation ;)

>
>     2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?
>
>
> I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is
> how it should be.
>
> GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or
> printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated
> by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.

Yes, obviously :)

>
> However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would
> affect the final part's license.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

Whosawhatsis

In the absence of any more unique/descriptive name (SCAD is an acronym for Solid Computer Aided Design, which is something that many programs do), I think that the code should go by that name, because that is the file extension for OpenSCAD files.

If this was not the intention from the beginning, a name for the language should have been chosen up front (say, PDG for Procedurally-Defined Geometry) and then that should have become the file extension. This type of change could still be made, and OpenSCAD could be adapted to use an file extension like .pdg while still recognizing the old .scad files, but this would be messy.

As it stands, the file extension is .scad, the files are commonly called "scad files" and I see no reason not to call the code contained in those files "scad code", especially with other projects like CloudSCAD starting to use the name.


On Thursday, December 9, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Elmo wrote:

I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
OpenSCAD compiler.

Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.

So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
alternative implementation ;)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

andy@kirbyand.co.uk
In reply to this post by Elmo Mäntynen
My vote is GPL.

LGPL was originally a GPL variant that could allow contribution from
closed source or restricted sources.

If there is no restriction then GPL

If there are restrictions in contributed sources then it has to continue
LGPL.

My undersanding is that you can go from GPL to LGPL but not the other
way. (Given the above)

If there are no current contributions from restricted sources, It could
be argued that it is better to go GPL. This makes contributions form
restricted sources less likely. And where needed it automatically
triggers the debate of do you really want them or not.

Personally I feel that inclusion of restricted sources should be a
conscious deliberate act, rather than due to mission creep towards the
dark side.

Thoughts for what they are worth.

aka47







On 09/12/10 12:34, Elmo wrote:

>
>
> On 12/09/2010 02:19 PM, Steven Dick wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
>>     but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>     1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
>>     MCAD) and why.
>>
>>
>> Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to
>> eventually, I think GPL is best.
>
> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
> OpenSCAD compiler.
>
> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>
> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
> alternative implementation ;)
>
>>
>>     2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?
>>
>>
>> I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is
>> how it should be.
>>
>> GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or
>> printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated
>> by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.
>
> Yes, obviously :)
>>
>> However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would
>> affect the final part's license.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

andy@kirbyand.co.uk
In reply to this post by Whosawhatsis
In real terms I am not piccy about names. (A rose is as a rose by any
other name).

I think though I support the argument quoted.

?SCAD is different fro other cad packages in that it is Solid Geometry
CAD for scriptys or programmers.

When looking at named variants (CloudSCAD, OpenSCAD) I see this naming
as differentiating  quite different entities whilst paying homage to the
giants upon who's shoulders the entity is stood.

So I see this as being to the good as well.

So what about ScriptCAD as a name which uses script files with an
extension .scad

On an aside......

Is there a version number or version identifying scheme for scad scripts
such that the interpreter can tell which version script file it is
expected to be working with (bit like html1, 1.1, 2 etc) Or is this
actually needed ??

I was thinking of potential changes to the language like adding
variables etc and how to auto ignore/cope with differences which may end
up needing to be perhaps non backwards compatible.

An obvuious technique for dealing with this used by other developers is
to use data files with a different extension for the newer perhaps non
backward compatible version. (Think of MS Orifice as a shudder worthy
example)

Sorry for muddying the waters, perhaps unnecessarily

Ahh this teapot smells and looks like a lovely rose.....

aka47







On 09/12/10 13:31, Whosawhatsis wrote:

>
>  In the absence of any more unique/descriptive name (SCAD is an acronym for Solid Computer Aided Design, which is something that many programs do), I think that the code should go by that name, because that is the file extension for OpenSCAD files.
>
>
> If this was not the intention from the beginning, a name for the language should have been chosen up front (say, PDG for Procedurally-Defined Geometry) and then that should have become the file extension. This type of change could still be made, and OpenSCAD could be adapted to use an file extension like .pdg while still recognizing the old .scad files, but this would be messy.
> As it stands, the file extension is .scad, the files are commonly called "scad files" and I see no reason not to call the code contained in those files "scad code", especially with other projects like CloudSCAD starting to use the name.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 9, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Elmo wrote:
>
>> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
>> OpenSCAD compiler.
>>
>> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
>> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
>> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
>> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
>> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>>
>> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
>> alternative implementation ;)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

Elmo Mäntynen
In reply to this post by andy@kirbyand.co.uk
Actually, it's the other way around :) GPL is more restrictive than
LGPL, so you can go from LGPL to GPL, but not in the other direction.
LGPL stand for Lesser GPL, and basically is the same as GPL but allows
linking from non-GPL code. Like glibC is LGPL so that proprietary code
can link to it, thus making the adoption of GNU/Linux easier.

Elmo

On 12/09/2010 03:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> My vote is GPL.
>
> LGPL was originally a GPL variant that could allow contribution from
> closed source or restricted sources.
>
> If there is no restriction then GPL
>
> If there are restrictions in contributed sources then it has to continue
> LGPL.
>
> My undersanding is that you can go from GPL to LGPL but not the other
> way. (Given the above)
>
> If there are no current contributions from restricted sources, It could
> be argued that it is better to go GPL. This makes contributions form
> restricted sources less likely. And where needed it automatically
> triggers the debate of do you really want them or not.
>
> Personally I feel that inclusion of restricted sources should be a
> conscious deliberate act, rather than due to mission creep towards the
> dark side.
>
> Thoughts for what they are worth.
>
> aka47
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/12/10 12:34, Elmo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/09/2010 02:19 PM, Steven Dick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo<[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>      MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
>>>      but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>      1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
>>>      MCAD) and why.
>>>
>>>
>>> Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to
>>> eventually, I think GPL is best.
>>
>> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
>> OpenSCAD compiler.
>>
>> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
>> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
>> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
>> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
>> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>>
>> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
>> alternative implementation ;)
>>
>>>
>>>      2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is
>>> how it should be.
>>>
>>> GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or
>>> printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated
>>> by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.
>>
>> Yes, obviously :)
>>>
>>> However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would
>>> affect the final part's license.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

Elmo Mäntynen
In reply to this post by Whosawhatsis


On 12/09/2010 03:31 PM, Whosawhatsis wrote:

> In the absence of any more unique/descriptive name (SCAD is an acronym
> for Solid Computer Aided Design, which is something that many programs
> do), I think that the code should go by that name, because that is the
> file extension for OpenSCAD files.
>
> If this was not the intention from the beginning, a name for the
> language should have been chosen up front (say, PDG for
> Procedurally-Defined Geometry) and then that should have become the file
> extension. This type of change could still be made, and OpenSCAD could
> be adapted to use an file extension like .pdg while still recognizing
> the old .scad files, but this would be messy.
>
> As it stands, the file extension is .scad, the files are commonly called
> "scad files" and I see no reason not to call the code contained in those
> files "scad code", especially with other projects like CloudSCAD
> starting to use the name.

I forgot CloudSCAD :) Yeah, Scad code it is then!

>
> On Thursday, December 9, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Elmo wrote:
>
>> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
>> OpenSCAD compiler.
>>
>> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
>> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
>> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
>> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
>> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>>
>> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
>> alternative implementation ;)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

M.Rule
In reply to this post by Elmo Mäntynen
This may be a stupid question, but what is the difference between the
*GPL class of licenses and the other creative commons licenses ? I
notice that many OpenSCAD files that get posted to Thingiverse end up
with creative-commons-non-commercial-share-alike license.



On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Elmo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Actually, it's the other way around :) GPL is more restrictive than
> LGPL, so you can go from LGPL to GPL, but not in the other direction.
> LGPL stand for Lesser GPL, and basically is the same as GPL but allows
> linking from non-GPL code. Like glibC is LGPL so that proprietary code
> can link to it, thus making the adoption of GNU/Linux easier.
>
> Elmo
>
> On 12/09/2010 03:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> My vote is GPL.
>>
>> LGPL was originally a GPL variant that could allow contribution from
>> closed source or restricted sources.
>>
>> If there is no restriction then GPL
>>
>> If there are restrictions in contributed sources then it has to continue
>> LGPL.
>>
>> My undersanding is that you can go from GPL to LGPL but not the other
>> way. (Given the above)
>>
>> If there are no current contributions from restricted sources, It could
>> be argued that it is better to go GPL. This makes contributions form
>> restricted sources less likely. And where needed it automatically
>> triggers the debate of do you really want them or not.
>>
>> Personally I feel that inclusion of restricted sources should be a
>> conscious deliberate act, rather than due to mission creep towards the
>> dark side.
>>
>> Thoughts for what they are worth.
>>
>> aka47
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/12/10 12:34, Elmo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/09/2010 02:19 PM, Steven Dick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo<[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
>>>>      but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>      1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
>>>>      MCAD) and why.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to
>>>> eventually, I think GPL is best.
>>>
>>> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
>>> OpenSCAD compiler.
>>>
>>> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
>>> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
>>> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
>>> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
>>> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>>>
>>> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
>>> alternative implementation ;)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>      2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is
>>>> how it should be.
>>>>
>>>> GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or
>>>> printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated
>>>> by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.
>>>
>>> Yes, obviously :)
>>>>
>>>> However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would
>>>> affect the final part's license.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

andy@kirbyand.co.uk
In reply to this post by Elmo Mäntynen
Depends what you call the restriction.

Change the definition of what the restriction is (is the bottle half
full or half empty) and you will see that we are heatedly agreeing on
the first part.

The second part I suggest you have the wrong way around.

It is impossible to go from LGPL to GPL while the code base contains
commercialy constrained code. (See I used constrained rather than
restricted, freedom and opennes for me are the natural state, commercial
interest is the restriction/constriction). This is due to GPL being anti
commercial constraint.

However as GPL source contains no commercially constrained code you can
rename it LGPL any time you please. By defintition then GPL source is
licensing backwards compatible with the same code base re licensed LGPL.

Hence my statement.

To relicense LGPL you must first remove all commercially constrained code.

aka47

PS it is a very bad state of affairs when commercial constraint is
considered to be so normal that we have to license (Copyleft) creative
gifts to keep it un-constrained.  LGPL is a gift to commercial EEE.


On 09/12/10 13:57, Elmo wrote:

> Actually, it's the other way around :) GPL is more restrictive than
> LGPL, so you can go from LGPL to GPL, but not in the other direction.
> LGPL stand for Lesser GPL, and basically is the same as GPL but allows
> linking from non-GPL code. Like glibC is LGPL so that proprietary code
> can link to it, thus making the adoption of GNU/Linux easier.
>
> Elmo
>
> On 12/09/2010 03:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> My vote is GPL.
>>
>> LGPL was originally a GPL variant that could allow contribution from
>> closed source or restricted sources.
>>
>> If there is no restriction then GPL
>>
>> If there are restrictions in contributed sources then it has to continue
>> LGPL.
>>
>> My undersanding is that you can go from GPL to LGPL but not the other
>> way. (Given the above)
>>
>> If there are no current contributions from restricted sources, It could
>> be argued that it is better to go GPL. This makes contributions form
>> restricted sources less likely. And where needed it automatically
>> triggers the debate of do you really want them or not.
>>
>> Personally I feel that inclusion of restricted sources should be a
>> conscious deliberate act, rather than due to mission creep towards the
>> dark side.
>>
>> Thoughts for what they are worth.
>>
>> aka47
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/12/10 12:34, Elmo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/09/2010 02:19 PM, Steven Dick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo<[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
>>>>      but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>      1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
>>>>      MCAD) and why.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to
>>>> eventually, I think GPL is best.
>>>
>>> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
>>> OpenSCAD compiler.
>>>
>>> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
>>> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
>>> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
>>> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
>>> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>>>
>>> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
>>> alternative implementation ;)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>      2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is
>>>> how it should be.
>>>>
>>>> GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or
>>>> printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated
>>>> by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.
>>>
>>> Yes, obviously :)
>>>>
>>>> However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would
>>>> affect the final part's license.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

Daniel Staal
In reply to this post by M.Rule

On Thu, December 9, 2010 9:02 am, M.Rule wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, but what is the difference between the
> *GPL class of licenses and the other creative commons licenses ? I
> notice that many OpenSCAD files that get posted to Thingiverse end up
> with creative-commons-non-commercial-share-alike license.

In general, *GPL licenses are _code_ licenses, while the Creative Commons
licenses are _document_ licenses.  Neither type are entirely appropriate
for Thingverse objects, but there aren't any pre-written licenses
specifically for 'object plans' at this time.

Code licenses deal with who can use the program created by the code, and
who gets the code and/or program.

Document licenses are more about who can distribute the document, what
happens for minor changes in the document, etc.  No program is intended or
expected to ever result from the document.  (Think book or magazine
article.)

Daniel T. Staal

---------------------------------------------------------------
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---------------------------------------------------------------


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

andy@kirbyand.co.uk
In reply to this post by M.Rule
GPL is specifically worded and aimed at software and source. As such its
wording tend to leave it a little lax when dealing with other forms of
creative mediums.

Interestingly GPL and its specific wording has survived a quantity of
legal action courtesy of the FSF etc.

Creative Commons is alternatively aimed at the other creative mediums
and may better overlap software than GPL overlaps other creative mediums.

So for example the source code for GIMP is GPL (Thank you Mr Stallman)
but offers no safeguarding to the media which you create using Gimp.

Creative commons however covers the media that you produced using GIMP.

Photographs then by example are covered well by creative commons but
poorly or not at all by GPL (or LGPL) for example.

As an electronics designer the software I use may be kept free and open
by GPL but the designs and artwork for hardware I produce are not. I
publish these under Creative commons.

You can't go hunting with a TV license and a TV license doesn't cover
you to go hunting.

Hope this helps

Cheers

AKA



On 09/12/10 14:02, M.Rule wrote:

> This may be a stupid question, but what is the difference between the
> *GPL class of licenses and the other creative commons licenses ? I
> notice that many OpenSCAD files that get posted to Thingiverse end up
> with creative-commons-non-commercial-share-alike license.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Elmo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Actually, it's the other way around :) GPL is more restrictive than
>> LGPL, so you can go from LGPL to GPL, but not in the other direction.
>> LGPL stand for Lesser GPL, and basically is the same as GPL but allows
>> linking from non-GPL code. Like glibC is LGPL so that proprietary code
>> can link to it, thus making the adoption of GNU/Linux easier.
>>
>> Elmo
>>
>> On 12/09/2010 03:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> My vote is GPL.
>>>
>>> LGPL was originally a GPL variant that could allow contribution from
>>> closed source or restricted sources.
>>>
>>> If there is no restriction then GPL
>>>
>>> If there are restrictions in contributed sources then it has to continue
>>> LGPL.
>>>
>>> My undersanding is that you can go from GPL to LGPL but not the other
>>> way. (Given the above)
>>>
>>> If there are no current contributions from restricted sources, It could
>>> be argued that it is better to go GPL. This makes contributions form
>>> restricted sources less likely. And where needed it automatically
>>> triggers the debate of do you really want them or not.
>>>
>>> Personally I feel that inclusion of restricted sources should be a
>>> conscious deliberate act, rather than due to mission creep towards the
>>> dark side.
>>>
>>> Thoughts for what they are worth.
>>>
>>> aka47
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/12/10 12:34, Elmo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/09/2010 02:19 PM, Steven Dick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo<[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>      MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
>>>>>      but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>      1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
>>>>>      MCAD) and why.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to
>>>>> eventually, I think GPL is best.
>>>>
>>>> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
>>>> OpenSCAD compiler.
>>>>
>>>> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
>>>> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
>>>> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
>>>> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
>>>> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>>>>
>>>> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
>>>> alternative implementation ;)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is
>>>>> how it should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or
>>>>> printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated
>>>>> by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, obviously :)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would
>>>>> affect the final part's license.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

Elmo Mäntynen
In reply to this post by andy@kirbyand.co.uk


On 12/09/2010 04:21 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Depends what you call the restriction.
>
> Change the definition of what the restriction is (is the bottle half
> full or half empty) and you will see that we are heatedly agreeing on
> the first part.
>
> The second part I suggest you have the wrong way around.
>
> It is impossible to go from LGPL to GPL while the code base contains
> commercialy constrained code. (See I used constrained rather than
> restricted, freedom and opennes for me are the natural state, commercial
> interest is the restriction/constriction). This is due to GPL being anti
> commercial constraint.
>
> However as GPL source contains no commercially constrained code you can
> rename it LGPL any time you please. By defintition then GPL source is
> licensing backwards compatible with the same code base re licensed LGPL.

You most definitely can't include someone others GPL code in you LGPL
project and keep it LGPL as a whole. That would be a direct violation of
the GPL.


> Hence my statement.
>
> To relicense LGPL you must first remove all commercially constrained code.

If there is "commercially contstrained code" then it isn't LGPL as a whole.

If the code is all yours, you can relicense all you want.

Elmo

> aka47
>
> PS it is a very bad state of affairs when commercial constraint is
> considered to be so normal that we have to license (Copyleft) creative
> gifts to keep it un-constrained.  LGPL is a gift to commercial EEE.
>
>
> On 09/12/10 13:57, Elmo wrote:
>> Actually, it's the other way around :) GPL is more restrictive than
>> LGPL, so you can go from LGPL to GPL, but not in the other direction.
>> LGPL stand for Lesser GPL, and basically is the same as GPL but allows
>> linking from non-GPL code. Like glibC is LGPL so that proprietary code
>> can link to it, thus making the adoption of GNU/Linux easier.
>>
>> Elmo
>>
>> On 12/09/2010 03:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> My vote is GPL.
>>>
>>> LGPL was originally a GPL variant that could allow contribution from
>>> closed source or restricted sources.
>>>
>>> If there is no restriction then GPL
>>>
>>> If there are restrictions in contributed sources then it has to continue
>>> LGPL.
>>>
>>> My undersanding is that you can go from GPL to LGPL but not the other
>>> way. (Given the above)
>>>
>>> If there are no current contributions from restricted sources, It could
>>> be argued that it is better to go GPL. This makes contributions form
>>> restricted sources less likely. And where needed it automatically
>>> triggers the debate of do you really want them or not.
>>>
>>> Personally I feel that inclusion of restricted sources should be a
>>> conscious deliberate act, rather than due to mission creep towards the
>>> dark side.
>>>
>>> Thoughts for what they are worth.
>>>
>>> aka47
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/12/10 12:34, Elmo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/09/2010 02:19 PM, Steven Dick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo<[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
>>>>>       but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>       1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
>>>>>       MCAD) and why.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to
>>>>> eventually, I think GPL is best.
>>>>
>>>> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
>>>> OpenSCAD compiler.
>>>>
>>>> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
>>>> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
>>>> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
>>>> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
>>>> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>>>>
>>>> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
>>>> alternative implementation ;)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is
>>>>> how it should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or
>>>>> printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated
>>>>> by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, obviously :)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would
>>>>> affect the final part's license.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

Ralf Schlatterbeck
In reply to this post by andy@kirbyand.co.uk
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:57:58PM +0200, Elmo wrote:

> Actually, it's the other way around :) GPL is more restrictive than
> LGPL, so you can go from LGPL to GPL, but not in the other direction.
> LGPL stand for Lesser GPL, and basically is the same as GPL but allows
> linking from non-GPL code. Like glibC is LGPL so that proprietary code
> can link to it, thus making the adoption of GNU/Linux easier.
>
> Elmo
>
> On 12/09/2010 03:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> >
> > My undersanding is that you can go from GPL to LGPL but not the other
> > way. (Given the above)

Looks like you are using different definitions of what "going from to"
means here.
- andy seems to mean "calling from GPL code to (libraries in) LGPL code
- while Elmo means "relicensing LGPL code under GPL (which is possible)
So I guess you're in violent agreement here.

Ralf
--
Dr. Ralf Schlatterbeck                  Tel:   +43/2243/26465-16
Open Source Consulting                  www:   http://www.runtux.com
Reichergasse 131, A-3411 Weidling       email: [hidden email]
osAlliance member                       email: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

M.Rule
In reply to this post by andy@kirbyand.co.uk
So if my OpenSCAD design files contain subroutines which could be
useful primitives in other objects, Do I license the object as CC or
GPL ?

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:30 AM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

> GPL is specifically worded and aimed at software and source. As such its
> wording tend to leave it a little lax when dealing with other forms of
> creative mediums.
>
> Interestingly GPL and its specific wording has survived a quantity of
> legal action courtesy of the FSF etc.
>
> Creative Commons is alternatively aimed at the other creative mediums
> and may better overlap software than GPL overlaps other creative mediums.
>
> So for example the source code for GIMP is GPL (Thank you Mr Stallman)
> but offers no safeguarding to the media which you create using Gimp.
>
> Creative commons however covers the media that you produced using GIMP.
>
> Photographs then by example are covered well by creative commons but
> poorly or not at all by GPL (or LGPL) for example.
>
> As an electronics designer the software I use may be kept free and open
> by GPL but the designs and artwork for hardware I produce are not. I
> publish these under Creative commons.
>
> You can't go hunting with a TV license and a TV license doesn't cover
> you to go hunting.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Cheers
>
> AKA
>
>
>
> On 09/12/10 14:02, M.Rule wrote:
>> This may be a stupid question, but what is the difference between the
>> *GPL class of licenses and the other creative commons licenses ? I
>> notice that many OpenSCAD files that get posted to Thingiverse end up
>> with creative-commons-non-commercial-share-alike license.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Elmo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Actually, it's the other way around :) GPL is more restrictive than
>>> LGPL, so you can go from LGPL to GPL, but not in the other direction.
>>> LGPL stand for Lesser GPL, and basically is the same as GPL but allows
>>> linking from non-GPL code. Like glibC is LGPL so that proprietary code
>>> can link to it, thus making the adoption of GNU/Linux easier.
>>>
>>> Elmo
>>>
>>> On 12/09/2010 03:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>> My vote is GPL.
>>>>
>>>> LGPL was originally a GPL variant that could allow contribution from
>>>> closed source or restricted sources.
>>>>
>>>> If there is no restriction then GPL
>>>>
>>>> If there are restrictions in contributed sources then it has to continue
>>>> LGPL.
>>>>
>>>> My undersanding is that you can go from GPL to LGPL but not the other
>>>> way. (Given the above)
>>>>
>>>> If there are no current contributions from restricted sources, It could
>>>> be argued that it is better to go GPL. This makes contributions form
>>>> restricted sources less likely. And where needed it automatically
>>>> triggers the debate of do you really want them or not.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I feel that inclusion of restricted sources should be a
>>>> conscious deliberate act, rather than due to mission creep towards the
>>>> dark side.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts for what they are worth.
>>>>
>>>> aka47
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/12/10 12:34, Elmo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/09/2010 02:19 PM, Steven Dick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo<[hidden email]
>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
>>>>>>      but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
>>>>>>      MCAD) and why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to
>>>>>> eventually, I think GPL is best.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
>>>>> OpenSCAD compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
>>>>> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
>>>>> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
>>>>> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
>>>>> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
>>>>> alternative implementation ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is
>>>>>> how it should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or
>>>>>> printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated
>>>>>> by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, obviously :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would
>>>>>> affect the final part's license.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

andy@kirbyand.co.uk
In reply to this post by Elmo Mäntynen
Consider my quote to which you were responding as we continue to
heatedly agree.

>> To relicense LGPL you must first remove all commercially constrained
code.

Consider the reply

> You most definitely can't include someone others GPL code in you LGPL
> project and keep it LGPL as a whole. That would be a direct violation of
> the GPL.

I see no disagreement here we are clearly talking about different things.

I am talking about changing the Code base license for OpenSCAD ie a code
base arguably in the possession of the developing group, more accurately
steered by. (your request for comments I think)

IE what would the licence be best as.

You are talking about taking someone else's GPL code and including it in
your LGPL project.

I think that is another discussion, do you have something in mind that
you want to include perhaps ??

aka47


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

kintel
Administrator
In reply to this post by Elmo Mäntynen
Hi,

My few cents:

For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that (L)GPL makes sense at all for OpenSCAD designs.

GPL somehow ends up being a necessary evil. If we all could get along, everything would be free without forcing it on us (e.g. smth. in the direction of BSD). LGPL kind of attempts works around this, which is important since GPL lets OS vendors off the hook.
Thus, GPL appears to be used as default as the most restrictive Open Source license possible, until the author figures out what to do about it. The same goes for OpenSCAD itself.

I have the feeling that most GPL/LGPL projects end up having one single well-defined copyright holder, requiring all contributions to have the rights transferred. This makes it possible to relicense at will. A discussion on this topic might be available online (pointers anyone?).

In the future, I'd like to include libraries with OpenSCAD, but I wouldn't like to restrict the license of designs using those libraries in any way, although I do hope that people share their work under a liberal license.

 -Marius


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

andy@kirbyand.co.uk
In reply to this post by M.Rule
My understanding here is GPL, whether it is all of your code or part of
it that would be GPL. Since to get the part the take has had to
duplicate it from the licensed whole.

Data files that your primitives create/write/modify though are likely to
be CC. (unless you are writing, self writing software..... Grin)

aka47



On 09/12/10 14:48, M.Rule wrote:

> So if my OpenSCAD design files contain subroutines which could be
> useful primitives in other objects, Do I license the object as CC or
> GPL ?
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:30 AM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> GPL is specifically worded and aimed at software and source. As such its
>> wording tend to leave it a little lax when dealing with other forms of
>> creative mediums.
>>
>> Interestingly GPL and its specific wording has survived a quantity of
>> legal action courtesy of the FSF etc.
>>
>> Creative Commons is alternatively aimed at the other creative mediums
>> and may better overlap software than GPL overlaps other creative mediums.
>>
>> So for example the source code for GIMP is GPL (Thank you Mr Stallman)
>> but offers no safeguarding to the media which you create using Gimp.
>>
>> Creative commons however covers the media that you produced using GIMP.
>>
>> Photographs then by example are covered well by creative commons but
>> poorly or not at all by GPL (or LGPL) for example.
>>
>> As an electronics designer the software I use may be kept free and open
>> by GPL but the designs and artwork for hardware I produce are not. I
>> publish these under Creative commons.
>>
>> You can't go hunting with a TV license and a TV license doesn't cover
>> you to go hunting.
>>
>> Hope this helps
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> AKA
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/12/10 14:02, M.Rule wrote:
>>> This may be a stupid question, but what is the difference between the
>>> *GPL class of licenses and the other creative commons licenses ? I
>>> notice that many OpenSCAD files that get posted to Thingiverse end up
>>> with creative-commons-non-commercial-share-alike license.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Elmo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Actually, it's the other way around :) GPL is more restrictive than
>>>> LGPL, so you can go from LGPL to GPL, but not in the other direction.
>>>> LGPL stand for Lesser GPL, and basically is the same as GPL but allows
>>>> linking from non-GPL code. Like glibC is LGPL so that proprietary code
>>>> can link to it, thus making the adoption of GNU/Linux easier.
>>>>
>>>> Elmo
>>>>
>>>> On 12/09/2010 03:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>> My vote is GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>> LGPL was originally a GPL variant that could allow contribution from
>>>>> closed source or restricted sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is no restriction then GPL
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are restrictions in contributed sources then it has to continue
>>>>> LGPL.
>>>>>
>>>>> My undersanding is that you can go from GPL to LGPL but not the other
>>>>> way. (Given the above)
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are no current contributions from restricted sources, It could
>>>>> be argued that it is better to go GPL. This makes contributions form
>>>>> restricted sources less likely. And where needed it automatically
>>>>> triggers the debate of do you really want them or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I feel that inclusion of restricted sources should be a
>>>>> conscious deliberate act, rather than due to mission creep towards the
>>>>> dark side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts for what they are worth.
>>>>>
>>>>> aka47
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/12/10 12:34, Elmo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/09/2010 02:19 PM, Steven Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Elmo<[hidden email]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      MCAD is currently licensed as LGPL, which was not my choice originally,
>>>>>>>      but I've asked for included code to be relicensed accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      1. What would be your choice of license for YOUR code (which would use
>>>>>>>      MCAD) and why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speaking as someone who has not yet contributed to OpenSCAD but hopes to
>>>>>>> eventually, I think GPL is best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was talking about OpenSCAD (the language) code, not the code of the
>>>>>> OpenSCAD compiler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should I talk about scad code then? What is the name of the language?
>>>>>> For some languages, the first or default dev environment has the same
>>>>>> name as the language itself. For example, the Python inter was called
>>>>>> Python by most, nowadays there are several implementations, and so the
>>>>>> first one is CPython, versus Jython etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Scad or OpenSCAD? I would hope that no one starts ClosedSCAD as an
>>>>>> alternative implementation ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      2. Does GPL/LGPL really apply in any significant manner?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think GPL affects parts generated by OpenSCAD at all, which is
>>>>>>> how it should be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GPL should only affect modifications to OpenSCAD itself, not STLs or
>>>>>>> printed parts or assemblies, which would be more like binaries generated
>>>>>>> by gcc, which also are not affected by the license of gcc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, obviously :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, libraries of code (things included in your part's code) would
>>>>>>> affect the final part's license.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenSCAD mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: About licensing of OpenSCAD code for MCAD and in general

andy@kirbyand.co.uk
In reply to this post by kintel
I agree GPL is necessary.

I agree that GPL is defensively restrictive in it's ability to combine
with other licensing models. If it wasn't then it would not have
survived the legal challenges.

Evil I am not sure about.

GPL does not prevent commerce, it just makes sure that commercial
organisations cannot monopolise it, or tax anyone else attempting to use
it. In this sense it is very much less restrictive/constrictive.

LGPL though I see as a gift to the EEE crowd (Embrace, Extend,
Extinguish). As soon as your application becomes unduly reliant on a sub
part (library for example) that is owned by a group/organisation with a
commercial agenda you have given away your freedom and are promoting
non-open source. (by non-open it may not be necessarily closed at the
time you start using it, if you doubt that this can change look at the
history of the gif file as one of very many examples.)

The groups/individuals that attempt to scam value out of others without
actually giving equivalent value in return are what would I describe as
Evil, as well as prevalent. (consider the current raft of court cases
with Company U like versus the Patent Trolls)

LGPL then is readily open to abuse. GPL is not. And if there is a need
to go LGPL to start and include library's etc that are non GPL then is
the time to have a debate as to whether the value the libraries bring is
worth the risk that a licence change will bring. (License change is
doable if all the contributors agree)

I am not presupposing what course that debate would/could/should take.
Only suggesting that is best it does happen.

If you want to leave the licensing wide open to abuse just in-case it
may perhaps, possibly spark a useful and neccesary debate later in the
applications life cycle. The don't pretend to any. publish it license free.


BTW I am representing the Devil in Doncaster Crown Court next week..... Grin


Whichever way I will probably continue to use/contribute to the
application cos it is good. I would prefer it to be for longer rather
than shorter. Contributing significant time etc to projects that are
then binned or closed off to make someone else very rich is arguably a
complete waste of that contribution.

Consider the fate of a whole raft of nominally Open-Sourced apps that
were not wholly GPL. Open Office, Java, MySQL, etc etc to name but a few.

aka47










On 09/12/10 14:49, Marius Kintel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My few cents:
>
> For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that (L)GPL makes sense at all for OpenSCAD designs.
>
> GPL somehow ends up being a necessary evil. If we all could get along, everything would be free without forcing it on us (e.g. smth. in the direction of BSD). LGPL kind of attempts works around this, which is important since GPL lets OS vendors off the hook.
> Thus, GPL appears to be used as default as the most restrictive Open Source license possible, until the author figures out what to do about it. The same goes for OpenSCAD itself.
>
> I have the feeling that most GPL/LGPL projects end up having one single well-defined copyright holder, requiring all contributions to have the rights transferred. This makes it possible to relicense at will. A discussion on this topic might be available online (pointers anyone?).
>
> In the future, I'd like to include libraries with OpenSCAD, but I wouldn't like to restrict the license of designs using those libraries in any way, although I do hope that people share their work under a liberal license.
>
>  -Marius
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>