Re: Licensing question regarding SN9C2028 decompression (fwd)

Re: Licensing question regarding SN9C2028 decompression (fwd)

[Theodore Kilgore]

Hans,

Here is the answer which I got about the question of GPL->LGPL licensing 
in regard to the sn9c2028 decompression code.

Theodore Kilgore

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:19:46 -0400
From: Harald <hxr@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Theodore Kilgore <kilgota@banach.math.auburn.edu>
Subject: Re: Licensing question regarding SN9C2028 decompression

Hi Theodore,

I give you permission to use the SN9C2028 code with a LGPL license.

I am the current maintainer of the macam project. Most of the code that has 
been
added in the last few years is mine. However, I did not originate the SN9C2028
code. I have messed with it a lot, it may not bear much resemblance to the 
original
code. I am sure that whatever code you based your version on has been modified
as well. I doubt that you use Objective-C for example...

It is likely that technically all of macam should be under LGPL anyway, as it 
works
as a plug-in component to QuickTime. So from an "intent" perspective, that is 
how
the macam code is used anyway. You should be able to use it the same way.

I have never been able to contact the originator (mattik) of the project! I 
became admin
through an intermediate admin (dirkx). We're all three admins, but neither of 
the others
have contributed anything in the last 5 years.

I hope this helps,
Harald


On May 24, 2009, at 13:40, Theodore Kilgore wrote:

> 
> Harald,
> 
> Right now I am working on putting streaming support for the SN9C2028 cameras 
> (supported by libgphoto2/camlibs/sonix as still cameras) into the Linux 
> kernel, as part of linux/drivers/media/video/gspca. In doing so, there is a 
> licensing conflict, as follows:
> 
> The Linux kernel is of course GPL licensed, as we are aware. However, the 
> philosophy of what the kernel is supposed to do with things like video 
> devices is, it takes care of creating a device dev/video and it takes care of 
> basic infrastructural things such as how to talk to the camera, to initialize 
> it, to turn it off, to tell it to stream, and to detect and save packets and 
> to construct frames.
> 
> The code for things like decompression has been deliberately moved away from 
> the kernel code, and the idea is to put all that stuff into a library called 
> libv4l, which then provides a unified interface for userspace streaming apps.
> 
> The problem is, the decompression code would need to go into part of libv4l, 
> namely libv4lconvert. And the license for libv4l and everything in it is 
> LGPL, not GPL.
> 
> As the originator of the decompression function for the Sonix cameras, are 
> you willing to give permission for taking my version of the code from GPL to 
> LGPL? Or can you suggest some other appropriate course of action?
> 
> Theodore Kilgore

Re: Licensing question regarding SN9C2028 decompression (fwd)

[Hans de Goede]

On 05/27/2009 11:43 PM, Theodore Kilgore wrote:
>
> Hans,
>
> Here is the answer which I got about the question of GPL->LGPL licensing
> in regard to the sn9c2028 decompression code.
>

Hmm,

Given that you did have contact with the original author years ago and
he also did ok it back then, and that large parts of the code are written
by you, I'm ok with moving forward changing the license to LGPL and then
committing the patch.

Regards,

Hans







> Theodore Kilgore
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:19:46 -0400
> From: Harald <hxr@users.sourceforge.net>
> To: Theodore Kilgore <kilgota@banach.math.auburn.edu>
> Subject: Re: Licensing question regarding SN9C2028 decompression
>
> Hi Theodore,
>
> I give you permission to use the SN9C2028 code with a LGPL license.
>
> I am the current maintainer of the macam project. Most of the code that
> has been
> added in the last few years is mine. However, I did not originate the
> SN9C2028
> code. I have messed with it a lot, it may not bear much resemblance to
> the original
> code. I am sure that whatever code you based your version on has been
> modified
> as well. I doubt that you use Objective-C for example...
>
> It is likely that technically all of macam should be under LGPL anyway,
> as it works
> as a plug-in component to QuickTime. So from an "intent" perspective,
> that is how
> the macam code is used anyway. You should be able to use it the same way.
>
> I have never been able to contact the originator (mattik) of the
> project! I became admin
> through an intermediate admin (dirkx). We're all three admins, but
> neither of the others
> have contributed anything in the last 5 years.
>
> I hope this helps,
> Harald
>
>
> On May 24, 2009, at 13:40, Theodore Kilgore wrote:
>
>>
>> Harald,
>>
>> Right now I am working on putting streaming support for the SN9C2028
>> cameras (supported by libgphoto2/camlibs/sonix as still cameras) into
>> the Linux kernel, as part of linux/drivers/media/video/gspca. In doing
>> so, there is a licensing conflict, as follows:
>>
>> The Linux kernel is of course GPL licensed, as we are aware. However,
>> the philosophy of what the kernel is supposed to do with things like
>> video devices is, it takes care of creating a device dev/video and it
>> takes care of basic infrastructural things such as how to talk to the
>> camera, to initialize it, to turn it off, to tell it to stream, and to
>> detect and save packets and to construct frames.
>>
>> The code for things like decompression has been deliberately moved
>> away from the kernel code, and the idea is to put all that stuff into
>> a library called libv4l, which then provides a unified interface for
>> userspace streaming apps.
>>
>> The problem is, the decompression code would need to go into part of
>> libv4l, namely libv4lconvert. And the license for libv4l and
>> everything in it is LGPL, not GPL.
>>
>> As the originator of the decompression function for the Sonix cameras,
>> are you willing to give permission for taking my version of the code
>> from GPL to LGPL? Or can you suggest some other appropriate course of
>> action?
>>
>> Theodore Kilgore
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Licensing question regarding SN9C2028 decompression (fwd)

[Theodore Kilgore]

On Thu, 28 May 2009, Hans de Goede wrote:

>
>
> On 05/27/2009 11:43 PM, Theodore Kilgore wrote:
>> 
>> Hans,
>> 
>> Here is the answer which I got about the question of GPL->LGPL licensing
>> in regard to the sn9c2028 decompression code.
>> 
>
> Hmm,
>
> Given that you did have contact with the original author years ago and
> he also did ok it back then, and that large parts of the code are written
> by you, I'm ok with moving forward changing the license to LGPL and then
> committing the patch.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans

If you think it is appropriate, I can include the mail as part of the 
file. I notice that this is done in some other files, for example in 
pac207.c. But as far as contact with the author is concerned, it is even 
more accurate to say that the cooperation was a two-way street. I 
understand that some of my LGPL code for other camera drivers has been put 
to use, too, in the macam project. For example, they also have drivers for 
the SQ cameras and the mr97310a cameras. Clearly, I do not have a problem 
with that any more than Harald has with my using the sn9c2028 
decompression algorithm. In fact, as he called the decompression algorithm 
to my attention, I brought to his attention the work which I had done on 
those other cameras. Sorry I did not keep all the e-mails, though.

Theodore Kilgore

Re: Licensing question regarding SN9C2028 decompression (fwd)

[Hans de Goede]

On 05/28/2009 04:34 PM, Theodore Kilgore wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 28 May 2009, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 05/27/2009 11:43 PM, Theodore Kilgore wrote:
>>>
>>> Hans,
>>>
>>> Here is the answer which I got about the question of GPL->LGPL licensing
>>> in regard to the sn9c2028 decompression code.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm,
>>
>> Given that you did have contact with the original author years ago and
>> he also did ok it back then, and that large parts of the code are written
>> by you, I'm ok with moving forward changing the license to LGPL and then
>> committing the patch.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>
> If you think it is appropriate, I can include the mail as part of the
> file. I notice that this is done in some other files, for example in
> pac207.c.

Ack,

But given that you are one of the authors of the original code in this case,
and the mail isn't a 100% clear re-license permission, I think its best to
just change the license and be done with it, without including the mail,
I think if anything the mail will only lead to confusion.

 > But as far as contact with the author is concerned, it is even
> more accurate to say that the cooperation was a two-way street. I
> understand that some of my LGPL code for other camera drivers has been
> put to use, too, in the macam project. For example, they also have
> drivers for the SQ cameras and the mr97310a cameras. Clearly, I do not
> have a problem with that any more than Harald has with my using the
> sn9c2028 decompression algorithm. In fact, as he called the
> decompression algorithm to my attention, I brought to his attention the
> work which I had done on those other cameras.

Ack, as said I think relicensing is fine.

> Sorry I did not keep all
> the e-mails, though.
>

No problem,

Regards,

Hans