Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos:1351 Newsgroups: lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos Path: lugnet.com!lugnet From: Ryan VanderBijl <rvbijl39@calvin.edu> X-Real-Life-Name: Ryan VanderBijl Subject: license question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: Ryan VanderBijl <rvbijl39@calvin.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: None X-Nntp-Gateway: lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos@lugnet.com Message-ID: <200008071729.e77HTpl04018@ursa.calvin.edu> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lugnet.com Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:29:51 GMT Lines: 26 Hello, I'm working with TinyVM, an implementation of the Java VM for the RCX. I'm am looking into expanding the LCD capabilities to display text characters, and I was hoping to copy some of the data and/or algorithm for displaying text. I am not very familiar with the Mozilla License agreement, and am wondering if I would legally be allowed to borrow some of the LCD code/information for the TinyVM project. Most of what I would need is from kernel/conio.c and include/conio.c. TinyVM is released under the Mozilla Public License 1.0, as is legOS. I would, of course, give credit. Thanks, Ryan -- Ryan VanderBijl http://www.calvin.edu/~rvbijl39
Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos:1352 Newsgroups: lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos Path: lugnet.com!dbaum From: Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> X-Real-Life-Name: Dave Baum Subject: Re: license question User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Organization: None Message-ID: <dbaum-3ADCF0.01312109082000@lugnet.com> References: <200008071729.e77HTpl04018@ursa.calvin.edu> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 207-229-151-186.d.enteract.com Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 06:31:21 GMT Lines: 82 The short answer is yes. The long answer... In general, free software licenses are self-compatible, meaning that you can take portions of software released under that license and create a different product using that same license. In fact, this is one of the basic requirements for a free software license (at least according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines - http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html). Your intended use (using files from one MPL product to build another MPL product) falls into this category, and is definitely allowed by the MPL. You don't even have to be careful about what you do...you don't really have to segregate the legOS originated sources from your own, you can modify however you wish, etc. Probably the only thing to be careful about is maitaining authorship and contributor credit where due (e.g. keep Markus' name in the files, add your own name if you modify them). The sticky issues come into play when you want to release the second work under a different license. GPL is quite restrictive in this sense. You can't take a module from a GPLed program and use it to build a larger work which is released in a non-GPL manner. Public domain is at the other end of the spectrum - you can do absolutely anything you want. The BSD license is also very permissive - license however you want, just be sure to give credit where due (1). MPL sits somewhere in the middle. You can't make MPL software non-MPL. If you take a file and make a mod to it, your modified file is also MPL. However, MPL does allow the concept of a "larger work", where MPL code makes up some subset of the larger work. The MPL code still remains MPL (including whatever mods you made), but the larger work does not have to be MPL. It could be proprietary (2). Whether this is "good" or not is a value judgement. When I released NQC, I felt uncomfortable with the GPL, and opted for MPL. I assume Markus had similar feelings when he released legOS. Dave Baum (1) I'm massively paraphrasing GPL and BSD here. The main point is that BSD and GPL are at somewhat opposite extremes in terms of compatibility with other software licenses (free and otherwise). (2) Doing this is tricky...you need good separation between the MPL and non-MPL portions of the program, and you still have to keep the MPL part MPL. In article <200008071729.e77HTpl04018@ursa.calvin.edu>, Ryan VanderBijl <rvbijl39@calvin.edu> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working with TinyVM, an implementation of the Java VM for the > RCX. > > I'm am looking into expanding the LCD capabilities to display text > characters, and I was hoping to copy some of the data and/or algorithm > for displaying text. > > I am not very familiar with the Mozilla License agreement, and am > wondering if I would legally be allowed to borrow some of the LCD > code/information for the TinyVM project. Most of what I would need > is from kernel/conio.c and include/conio.c. > > TinyVM is released under the Mozilla Public License 1.0, as is > legOS. > > I would, of course, give credit. > > Thanks, > > Ryan > > > -- > Ryan VanderBijl http://www.calvin.edu/~rvbijl39 > -- reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos:1356 Newsgroups: lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos Path: lugnet.com!lugnet From: Luis Villa <liv@duke.edu> X-Real-Life-Name: Luis Villa Subject: Re: license question Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: Luis Villa <liv@duke.edu> Sender: liv@teer13.acpub.duke.edu Organization: None X-Nntp-Gateway: lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos@lugnet.com Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10008091454430.1724-100000@teer13.acpub.duke.edu> References: <dbaum-3ADCF0.01312109082000@lugnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lugnet.com Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:57:34 GMT Lines: 20 > Whether this is "good" or not is a value judgement. When I released > NQC, I felt uncomfortable with the GPL, and opted for MPL. I assume > Markus had similar feelings when he released legOS. IIRC, legOS is MPL because Kekoa released some of his code under MPL, and so Markus released the rest under MPL in order to allow him to use that particular section of code. I believe that he once mentioned that his natural leanings would otherwise have been towards a public domain style license. Luis ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Summertime... and the living is easy... fish are jumping and the cotton is high... So hush, little baby, baby don't you cry." -Ella -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos:1358 Newsgroups: lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos Path: lugnet.com!not-for-mail From: kekoa@pixel.Stanford.EDU (Kekoa Proudfoot) X-Real-Life-Name: Kekoa Proudfoot Subject: Re: license question X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test69 (20 September 1998) Organization: Stanford University Message-ID: <Fz1KGs.CAE@lugnet.com> References: <dbaum-3ADCF0.01312109082000@lugnet.com> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10008091454430.1724-100000@teer13.acpub.duke.edu> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pixel.stanford.edu Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 20:19:40 GMT Lines: 15 Luis Villa <liv@duke.edu> wrote: > > Whether this is "good" or not is a value judgement. When I released > > NQC, I felt uncomfortable with the GPL, and opted for MPL. I assume > > Markus had similar feelings when he released legOS. > > IIRC, legOS is MPL because Kekoa released some of his code under MPL, and > so Markus released the rest under MPL in order to allow him to use that > particular section of code. I believe that he once mentioned that his > natural leanings would otherwise have been towards a public domain style > license. I chose MPL because Dave did! :) It probably would have been GPL otherwise though. -Kekoa
Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos:1359 Newsgroups: lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos Path: lugnet.com!dbaum From: Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> X-Real-Life-Name: Dave Baum Subject: Re: license question User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Organization: None Message-ID: <dbaum-04DD76.23375109082000@lugnet.com> References: <dbaum-3ADCF0.01312109082000@lugnet.com> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10008091454430.1724-100000@teer13.acpub.duke.edu> <Fz1KGs.CAE@lugnet.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 207-229-151-236.d.enteract.com Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 04:37:51 GMT Lines: 44 In article <Fz1KGs.CAE@lugnet.com>, kekoa@pixel.Stanford.EDU (Kekoa Proudfoot) wrote: > Luis Villa <liv@duke.edu> wrote: > > > Whether this is "good" or not is a value judgement. When I released > > > NQC, I felt uncomfortable with the GPL, and opted for MPL. I assume > > > Markus had similar feelings when he released legOS. > > > > IIRC, legOS is MPL because Kekoa released some of his code under MPL, > > and > > so Markus released the rest under MPL in order to allow him to use that > > particular section of code. I believe that he once mentioned that his > > natural leanings would otherwise have been towards a public domain > > style > > license. > > I chose MPL because Dave did! :) It probably would have been GPL > otherwise > though. > I guess its all my fault :) The choice between GPL and MPL was a tough one. My main worry with using GPL was that I have a lot of "generic" code from other projects in NQC. Now if had I released under GPL, and other people made improvements to those modules, I would not have been able to use the improved modules in any non-GPL projects. I also considered the library version of the GPL, but MPL seemed to fit better. If NQC had been written completely from scratch I probably would've went the GPL route. In the end I think it mattered very little. All of this Lego work is being done in a very cooperative environment. I don't think anyone has wanted to do something that was prevented by MPL (but would've been allowed by public domain), and on the flip side I don't think anyone has exploited the MPL to do something "evil" with the software that could've been prevented with the GPL. Dave Baum -- reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com