Licensing question

Licensing question

[Pavel Fedin]

 Hello!
 I'm a member of AROS team (http://www.aros.org) and i'd like to ask for a permission to use parts of Linux source code (small parts) in developing this system. It is licensed under APL (http://www.aros.org/license.html) so i need a permission. I don't know where to ask for it so i ask here.
 Currently i use a little part of ide-cd driver and its includes.

-- 
Best regards,
Pavel Fedin,									mailto:sonic_amiga@rambler.ru

Re: Licensing question

[DervishD]

    Hi Pavel :)

 * Pavel Fedin <sonic_amiga@rambler.ru> dixit:
>  Currently i use a little part of ide-cd driver and its includes.

    I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a GPL-expert, neither, but AFAIK,
if you use GPL code in your project, your code becomes GPLd too.

    If you use ide-cd driver (or even a part of it), since it is GPL,
the code that uses it is GPL too. If Aros is not going to distribute
such source code, then Aros is not allowed to use GPL code.

    Ask FSF for details.

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736
http://www.dervishd.net & http://www.pleyades.net/

Re: Licensing question

[Jan Engelhardt]

"Using" GPL stuff as say, a 3rd-party library, I dunno, but:

>>  Currently i use a little part of ide-cd driver and its includes.

sounds like you copied it into your project and changed the license,
which clearly is not allowed.



Jan Engelhardt
-- 
Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung
Am Fassberg, 37077 Göttingen, www.gwdg.de

Re: Licensing question

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 12:38 +0100, DervishD wrote:

>     I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a GPL-expert, neither, but AFAIK,
> if you use GPL code in your project, your code becomes GPLd too.
> 
>     If you use ide-cd driver (or even a part of it), since it is GPL,
> the code that uses it is GPL too. If Aros is not going to distribute
> such source code, then Aros is not allowed to use GPL code.

If you get the permission from the actual authors of the code you use
(in writing) then you don't need to follow the GPL, since the authors
can do whatever they want. But the problem here is, can you track down
all the authors of the said code to get them to write you a permission
slip?

>     Ask FSF for details.

No need to, just ask the authors of the actual code being used.

-- Steve

Re: Licensing question

[linux-os]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Pavel Fedin wrote:

> Hello!
> I'm a member of AROS team (http://www.aros.org) and i'd like to ask for a permission to use parts of Linux source code (small parts) in developing this system. It is licensed under APL (http://www.aros.org/license.html) so i need a permission. I don't know where to ask for it so i ask here.
> Currently i use a little part of ide-cd driver and its includes.
>
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Pavel Fedin,
mailto:sonic_amiga@rambler.ru

I think you will need to "inspect-to-learn", then write your own.
Don't just change the variable names.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.9 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
  Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by John Ashcroft.
                  98.36% of all statistics are fiction.

Re: Licensing question

[Paulo Marques]

Pavel Fedin wrote:
>  Hello!
>  I'm a member of AROS team (http://www.aros.org) and i'd like to ask for a permission to use parts of Linux source code (small parts) in developing this system. It is licensed under APL (http://www.aros.org/license.html) so i need a permission. I don't know where to ask for it so i ask here.
>  Currently i use a little part of ide-cd driver and its includes.
> 

 From your license page, I can see that the license is based on the MPL 
(Mozilla public license). If you check:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

the MPL is listed as a GPL incompatible license.

This means that either the APL solves the issues of the MPL so that it 
is GPL compatible, or you have to ask the original authors permission to 
use their code (which is usually complicated because there are usually a 
lot of them...)

-- 
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

licensing question

[Annie Wojcik]

Hello,
Can you tell me if this product is free for educational use? We would like
to include it in our software master and have it installed on all
computers. We are just double checking as some license agreements can be
confusing.


Thanks
Annie


Annie Wojcik
Technical Support Specialist

Technical Services
Northcentral Technical College
1000 West Campus Drive
Wausau, WI 54401
715.675.3331 ext 1105
Direct 715-803-1105
wojcika@ntc.edu

Help Desk 1160

Re: licensing question

[Matthieu Moy]

"Annie Wojcik" <Wojcika@ntc.edu> writes:

> Hello,
> Can you tell me if this product is free for educational use?

Git is free, period ;-). Both free of charge, and "free as in free
speach" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html).

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: licensing question

[Stefan Beller]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Matthieu Moy
<Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
> "Annie Wojcik" <Wojcika@ntc.edu> writes:
>
>> Hello,
>> Can you tell me if this product is free for educational use?
>
> Git is free, period ;-). Both free of charge, and "free as in free
> speach" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html).

A quick overview:
https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v2

In case of doubt however the actual license should be
read and interpreted by lawyers. :)

Stefan

>
> --
> Matthieu Moy
> http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Licensing Question

[Patrick Venture]

So, I've spent the last hour trying to submodule my way to using
ipmitool.  I've managed to get it compiling for just the one file I
need (or want).  However, then I try to link it and then more failures
for things that are missing, such as helper methods.  So, then I add
the file that has those, and then it doesn't compile because that file
doesn't compile.  This is of course, not compiling with the -Werror
flag among other things with gcc.

So, I can keep battling this, or I can ask -- the license for the
ipmitool just says I need to keep a copy of the license with the
source if I reuse it.  So, I can do that, and I can hack it up to work
-- but where I'm curious is -- how does that impact the license of
phosphor-ipmi-flash?

(Some of the things where gcc is complaining, I can go ahead and
submit patches to fix.)

Patrick

Re: Licensing Question

[krtaylor]

On 8/8/18 5:45 PM, Patrick Venture wrote:
> So, I've spent the last hour trying to submodule my way to using
> ipmitool.  I've managed to get it compiling for just the one file I
> need (or want).  However, then I try to link it and then more failures
> for things that are missing, such as helper methods.  So, then I add
> the file that has those, and then it doesn't compile because that file
> doesn't compile.  This is of course, not compiling with the -Werror
> flag among other things with gcc.
> 
> So, I can keep battling this, or I can ask -- the license for the
> ipmitool just says I need to keep a copy of the license with the
> source if I reuse it.  So, I can do that, and I can hack it up to work
> -- but where I'm curious is -- how does that impact the license of
> phosphor-ipmi-flash?

Not a legal professional. That said, it depends on the license and 
linking, packaging, etc.

I am assuming phosphor-ipmi-flash is Apachev2, so linking to any GPL may 
have viral effects. ipmitool looks to be bsd so it *should* be ok.

Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)

Re: Licensing Question

[Patrick Venture]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:47 AM, krtaylor <kurt.r.taylor@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/18 5:45 PM, Patrick Venture wrote:
>>
>> So, I've spent the last hour trying to submodule my way to using
>> ipmitool.  I've managed to get it compiling for just the one file I
>> need (or want).  However, then I try to link it and then more failures
>> for things that are missing, such as helper methods.  So, then I add
>> the file that has those, and then it doesn't compile because that file
>> doesn't compile.  This is of course, not compiling with the -Werror
>> flag among other things with gcc.
>>
>> So, I can keep battling this, or I can ask -- the license for the
>> ipmitool just says I need to keep a copy of the license with the
>> source if I reuse it.  So, I can do that, and I can hack it up to work
>> -- but where I'm curious is -- how does that impact the license of
>> phosphor-ipmi-flash?
>
>
> Not a legal professional. That said, it depends on the license and linking,
> packaging, etc.
>
> I am assuming phosphor-ipmi-flash is Apachev2, so linking to any GPL may
> have viral effects. ipmitool looks to be bsd so it *should* be ok.

Yeah, phosphor-ipmi-flash is apache v2 and the ipmitool source has a
license file to a company that says I just need to include that
license file in anything that uses that code.  So, I'm going to drop
their license file into a folder with any code from them...

https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/phosphor-ipmi-flash/+/11858

This patchset is where it'll show up as actual code manipulation
versus just adding a gitsubmodule, if anyone is curious.

>
> Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)

Re: Licensing Question

[Vernon Mauery]

On 08-Aug-2018 03:45 PM, Patrick Venture wrote:
>So, I've spent the last hour trying to submodule my way to using
>ipmitool.  I've managed to get it compiling for just the one file I

Okay, I'll bite. What are you trying to use ipmitool for?

>need (or want).  However, then I try to link it and then more failures
>for things that are missing, such as helper methods.  So, then I add
>the file that has those, and then it doesn't compile because that file
>doesn't compile.  This is of course, not compiling with the -Werror
>flag among other things with gcc.

I think Alexander is working on getting ipmitool to compile without 
warnings upstream. That is quite the task though; he inherited a lot of 
warnings. :)

>So, I can keep battling this, or I can ask -- the license for the
>ipmitool just says I need to keep a copy of the license with the
>source if I reuse it.  So, I can do that, and I can hack it up to work
>-- but where I'm curious is -- how does that impact the license of
>phosphor-ipmi-flash?

This is where the lawyers start to smile....

>(Some of the things where gcc is complaining, I can go ahead and
>submit patches to fix.)
>
>Patrick

Re: Licensing Question

[Patrick Venture]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Vernon Mauery
<vernon.mauery@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 08-Aug-2018 03:45 PM, Patrick Venture wrote:
>>
>> So, I've spent the last hour trying to submodule my way to using
>> ipmitool.  I've managed to get it compiling for just the one file I
>
>
> Okay, I'll bite. What are you trying to use ipmitool for?

I'm trying to use the ipmitool source for speaking IPMI without
duplicating the code to do so.  I can just open the file interface
myself and handle it, but it seemed to reinvent the wheel on this one.
Although I do need to push a bugfix to ipmitool where they don't check
the msgId returned to see if it matches their expectation.  Unless
someone else fixed it (still need to check).

>
>> need (or want).  However, then I try to link it and then more failures
>> for things that are missing, such as helper methods.  So, then I add
>> the file that has those, and then it doesn't compile because that file
>> doesn't compile.  This is of course, not compiling with the -Werror
>> flag among other things with gcc.
>
>
> I think Alexander is working on getting ipmitool to compile without warnings
> upstream. That is quite the task though; he inherited a lot of warnings. :)
>
>> So, I can keep battling this, or I can ask -- the license for the
>> ipmitool just says I need to keep a copy of the license with the
>> source if I reuse it.  So, I can do that, and I can hack it up to work
>> -- but where I'm curious is -- how does that impact the license of
>> phosphor-ipmi-flash?
>
>
> This is where the lawyers start to smile....

The license is fairly permissive, just says I need to include it.

>
>
>> (Some of the things where gcc is complaining, I can go ahead and
>> submit patches to fix.)
>>
>> Patrick

Re: Licensing Question

[Alexander Amelkin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2270 bytes --]

09.08.2018 19:41, Patrick Venture wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Vernon Mauery
> <vernon.mauery@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 08-Aug-2018 03:45 PM, Patrick Venture wrote:
>>> So, I've spent the last hour trying to submodule my way to using
>>> ipmitool.  I've managed to get it compiling for just the one file I
>>
>> Okay, I'll bite. What are you trying to use ipmitool for?
> I'm trying to use the ipmitool source for speaking IPMI without
> duplicating the code to do so.  I can just open the file interface
> myself and handle it, but it seemed to reinvent the wheel on this one.
> Although I do need to push a bugfix to ipmitool where they don't check
> the msgId returned to see if it matches their expectation.  Unless
> someone else fixed it (still need to check).
There are other options, you know. You could use libopenipmi or
libfreeipmi libraries if you're trying to talk IPMI from a C++ code.
ipmitool is only good for scripts.
>> I think Alexander is working on getting ipmitool to compile without warnings
>> upstream. That is quite the task though; he inherited a lot of warnings. :)
I do. And it's really hell of a task. I've inherited not just a lot of
warnings, but also a lot of magic numbers, copy-pasted or plain
inefficient or useless code, etc. A good example of how broken things
live for decades and even soak into parallel products is
https://github.com/ipmitool/ipmitool/issues/25
>>
>>> So, I can keep battling this, or I can ask -- the license for the
>>> ipmitool just says I need to keep a copy of the license with the
>>> source if I reuse it.  So, I can do that, and I can hack it up to work
>>> -- but where I'm curious is -- how does that impact the license of
>>> phosphor-ipmi-flash?
What exactly are you trying to do? Create your own flavor of ipmitool
with blackjack and... bugfixes? Better submit pull requests to upstream
then.

If you're trying to just borrow some portions of code, then... Well, you
can do it as long as you keep the BSD license boilerplate with
respective copyright info, but I'm feeling like it's not a good idea
anyway.
> The license is fairly permissive, just says I need to include it.
Yup. It's just a standard BSD three-clause license.

Alexander.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]