Beginning Wimp Programming in C

Most of the relevant files seems to say […]

Which files are those? I’m looking at …Export.APCS-32.Lib.CLib.h.stdio and the boilerplate at the top talks about source code, which is somewhat confusing when it is a header file for a binary library (hence, not a source release).

The main ReadMe says nothing about the licence. Nothing in Documents.DDE seems pertinent. A quick check of a slightly older version of Documents.Manuals.DDE/pdf (because Adobe Reader on the iPad can search the entire document in a dozen or so seconds) found neither “licence” nor “license” in the entire document. Ditto the C_C++/pdf file.

I’m going to carry on using the libraries in my non-open software, just as I always have – but I think it might be useful if ROOL clarified the situation in the next DDE release, plus also drew a distinction between using the libraries as-is, and using source code of the libraries (which may oblige the project licensing to be amended appropriately).

People will say my interpretation is wrong but as I see it without clarity in the licence these products are of limited use.

Such are the unfortunate side effects of blindly copy-pasting boilerplate onto everything in sight. ;-)

IANAL, but reading through http://www.castle-technology.co.uk/licence/baselicence.shtml it would probably be found to be null and void. Its concern, one that is mentioned frequently within the document, is for RISC OS and derivative works.
Using a library supplied with the toolchain would only make your code a derivative work of RISC OS in some weird alternative reality where “derivative” ceases to mean its normal interpretation of being “derived from”. You know, like Linux kernel modules. :-P

So, I repeat my request – ROOL might want to clarify the licence situation in the ReadMe of the next DDE release. And bonus points & cookies if there’s an update file to clarify this for current incarnations of the DDE.

BTW – is this supposed to be here: [DDE]AcornC/C++.Export.APCS-32.Lib.RISC_OSLib.s.modulewrap ?

Exactly

The OSLib ReadMe says…

But the licence doesn’t. The only licence I/you have is the GPL. What sort of statement is ‘This this licenced under GPL but it isn’t really’ is it or isn’t it. From your statement you must think I’m being deliberately obtuse but I’m not. All I would want in an actual licence to use it in Non GPL code.

Which files are those?

I’m at work now so don’t have handy access to the DDE. I just searched for “licence” and picked a couple of files at random (I think one was menu.h from tboxlibs but I can’t say for sure).

ROOL might want to clarify the licence situation

I would want a different licence to make it useful outside compiling roms just saying it is ok isn’t good enough.

I’m honestly unsure why you won’t take yes for an answer. In the case of OSLib the copyright holder explicitly says you can do it, but you apparently won’t accept that. I’m sorry if that comes across as rude, but I’m at a complete loss as to what the issue is.

Edit: Maybe I can phrase it a different way. The OSLib source code is GPL licensed, but the binaries are “freely usable” for linking without a specific licence. This right has been explicitly granted by the copyright holder, via the ReadMe file.

I would want a different licence to make it useful outside compiling roms just saying it is ok isn’t good enough.

Depends on how it is written. If there is something supplied with the DDE that states that “These libraries [specify!] may be freely used in their supplied object form in any RISC OS software (free or commercial, open or closed source) as is necessary.” then that would do for me. It would be better to change the nonsensical boilerplate as it isn’t logical in this (non-source) context, but given the volunteer status of ROOL and the many other things that need done, I’ll settle for a mention elsewhere. As long as there is an authoritative statement from ROOL on the subject that can be referred to…

Edit: Maybe I can phrase it a different way. The OSLib source code is GPL licensed, but the binaries are “freely usable” for linking without a specific licence. This right has been explicitly granted by the copyright holder, via the ReadMe file.

….uh, so shouldn’t it be LGPL in that case?

but I’m at a complete loss as to what the issue is.

Let’s see… The website file states that the libraries can be used in non-GPL software. The archive comes with the standard COPYING file that does not make any mention of this whatsoever. However, and here’s the fun part, the header files themselves do mention this (I’m looking at h.actionbutton). From this, it seems clear to me that the library can be used in non-GPL programs. The website text is the least significant, the text within the header files themselves is the most significant (licence files and readmes fall in between unless the header files make no mention of licence).
The anomaly is the COPYING file that does not mention the exception. As changing the document is not permitted (which is probably why it doesn’t mention anything), maybe there should be a COPYING2 file that explains the special modification to the terms?

Because the licence is the only document that allows you to use the authors software. If they mean what they say then they should make a licence saying you can. As they haven’t the conclusion you have to come to is that they can’t.

But the licence doesn’t. The only licence I/you have is the GPL.

As far as I know, I quoted you the licence. The licence refers to the GPL, which is in the separate ‘copying’ file, but unless I’m missing something, the bit that matters is in the ReadMe?

What sort of statement is ‘This this licenced under GPL but it isn’t really’ is it or isn’t it.

As far as I can see, the part that matters here is licensed under two licences. If you want to use the OSLib source code, you must be using it in a GPL project. I’ve used modified parts of OSLib’s build system in the system I use to build my software, and those changes were released under the GPL (they’re in OSLib’s source now, in fact).

The important bit is that the OSLib binary has a second, additional license attached — which says that you can link it into proprietary code too. The copyright holders can do that: it’s their copyright to licence in as many ways as they see fit.

From your statement you must think I’m being deliberately obtuse but I’m not. All I would want in an actual licence to use it in Non GPL code.

I still think you have it: “proprietary” seems to have a fairly specific meaning in a GPL context, at least if Google is to be believed.

….uh, so shouldn’t it be LGPL in that case?

*shrug* [edit: don’t know]

[deleted – as LGPL discussed but discarded as a viable option, as noted below]

….uh, so shouldn’t it be LGPL in that case?

No. The OSLib FAQ makes it clear that the LGPL wasn’t considered free enough for what they wanted.

The website file states that the libraries can be used in non-GPL software. The archive comes with the standard COPYING file that does not make any mention of this whatsoever.

It certainly does. The OSLib ReadMe inside the archive defines the licence, and refers you to the COPYING file for details of the GPL bit of that.

The anomaly is the COPYING file that does not mention the exception. As changing the document is not permitted (which is probably why it doesn’t mention anything), maybe there should be a COPYING2 file that explains the special modification to the terms?

That file is already there: it’s just called “OSLib_readme”.

I should probably add that, based on my reading of the LGPL, the key stumbling block would appear to be clause 4d — which requires developers to make it possible for users to upgrade their copy of the library to a new one at any time. Without properly shared libraries, that’s a little tricky to do if you just want to release an executable.

the part that matters here is licensed under two licences

I only see one. If I’m researching using the GPL licence and come across the GPL FAQ and it says something that I think disagrees with the licence, is the licence correct of the FAQ? The Licence of course. The Readme is the equivalent of the GPL FAQ its not a licence.

Anyway I’ve said enough.

which requires developers to make it possible for users to upgrade their copy of the library to a new one at any time.

Good point.

The Readme is the equivalent of the GPL FAQ its not a licence.

That’s why I said that the most important thing is not the included licence file, but what the header files themselves say. The actual content that the licence applies to¹ says “this” so “this” is what goes.

¹ In lieu of any sensible mechanism of the object file itself stating its own licence…

I only see one. If I’m researching using the GPL licence and come across the GPL FAQ and it says something that I think disagrees with the licence, is the licence correct of the FAQ? The Licence of course. The Readme is the equivalent of the GPL FAQ its not a licence.

Then, as Rick says, look at the licence at the top of any of the OSLib header files. That’s actually explicit:

 *    OSLib is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option)
 * any later version - and this with the following clarification and
 * special exception:
 * 
 *    Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules
 * is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms
 * and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
 * combination.
 * 
 *    As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library
 * give you permission to link this library with independent modules
 * to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these
 * independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting
 * executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet,
 * for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the
 * license of that module. An independent module is a module which is
 * not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this
 * library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library,
 * but you are not obliged to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete
 * this exception statement from your version.

Does that not answer your questions?

Yes

I can only distribute my code as an executable with a licence of my choice. If I use this library and want to distribute my source I can only release GPL compatible source.

Edit:

On second thoughts I don’t think it can stop me distributing the sources with my own licence and it’s probably good enough. Still wouldn’t be confident enough to use it myself but can see others would.

Edit 2:

Not as confident as I was in edit 1

An independent module is a module which is * not derived from or based on this library

Just says I can’t use the library. Not basing your work on a library is not using a library. I give up. I’ll just avoid it.

I can only distribute my code as an executable with a licence of my choice. If I use this library and want to distribute my source I can only release GPL compatible source.

Various thoughts:
It is a modified ‘GNU public licence’

The copyright holders have granted a relaxation of the conditions of this licence…

Whilst it does say that if ‘the sources’ are released they must be under ‘GNU public licence’
surely ‘the sources’ are of the OSLib library not the program written using it. So I would think you could release the source of programs using the library as long as you do not include the library sources.

However if you modify OSLib AND want to release the sources to a program using it, then you it must be under ‘GNU public licence’

I don’t think they’d thought through the implications of the relaxation, as they seem to want it used widely.

For the life of me I can’t see what Colin’s problem is.

A licence is a statement of the terms under which the licensed stuff can be used. Looking at it from the other direction, other documents can be used, instead of or in addition to a licence. A document that calls itself a licence is not required in all cases – look at the number of applications that have been released over the years where the terms are in a document that calls itself something other than a licence. A ReadMe file is just as legal.

So, back to this case.

The ReadMe file states that the source for OSLib is covered by the GPL – hence the presence of a copy of the GPL along with OSLib.

The ReadMe file states that the authors have agreed a relaxation of the conditions… (etc.) for the use of the binaries built from the sources; which they are free to do.

Therefore anyone can link with OSLib binaries and distribute the linked entirety under terms of their choice. They must also make available the sources of the version of OSLib that they have used. This is the only way in which the GPL affects them.

There really is no problem.

The ReadMe file states that the source for OSLib is covered by the GPL – hence the presence of a copy of the GPL along with OSLib.
The ReadMe file states that the authors have agreed a relaxation of the conditions… (etc.) for the use of the binaries built from the sources; which they are free to do.

Yes, but if the main license is respected… so GPL. Circular reference, as GPL does not permit that. Put source code in GPL, give possibility not to respect it, while respecting it. It would be the same as saying: speed is limited to 55 mph. You can go faster, if you respect the limit.

License permits exceptions, while saying:

“Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules
is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms
and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
combination.”

Things can not really work like this. You should adopt another license : here LGPL + static linking exception. Or say specifically that there are two different licenses. Here, it’s not very clear. First part.

Second part: the GPL itself. It’s probably exact to say that OSLib code will not be copied inside your compiled code, or that your code will not be linked to OSLib. If we see OSLib as shortcuts, so headers, we should not use GPL licence. That’s the same debate with Java around API and interoperability. Headers and API should not be covered by a license (not like this anyway).

For the life of me I can’t see what Colin’s problem is.

I do realise that it is my problem. My view is that a licence are the terms under which I may use the software. I dare say that courts of law would say that something constitutes a licence but I’m no lawyer and its safer not to assume. I won’t

1) work around the licence by assuming the intent
2) ignore it and it’ll be ok.
3) try to reinterpret the wording to suit me.

For example the exception says

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library
 * give you permission to link this library with independent modules
 * to produce an executable,

And then goes on to say

An independent module is a module which is
 * not derived from or based on this library.

I can’t see how I can use a library and not base my work on it. You and others obviously think that the licence’s wording is obvious but it isn’t to me and as such I can’t be confident that I am complying with the licence. The only way I would use this software is in GPL code as I am sure then that I can comply with the licence.

I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from using it and it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong. I’m just looking after myself. I’ve only extended this thread because people have tried to clarify the licence to show my misgivings are unfounded.

I’m not a lawyer but I’ve seen this kind of thing before. Here’s my take on it.

Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

This text (from the OSLib FAQ) is just setting out what the GPL (without exceptions) applies to.

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module.

This just says that you can link the compiled code of your application/library to the library and distribute it under some other terms unless those terms of your application/library forbid it themselves. The use of “independent module” is confusing in itself, but here’s the definition:

An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library.

Here, the “derived from or based on” language is unfortunate because it leads to over-strict interpretations. I don’t think it’s enough to say that linking with the library is deriving from it or basing code on it. My interpretation is that the authors had in mind the situation where someone used code from the library or made a wrapper round it and tried to use the exception to dodge the requirements of the license.

I thought the use of “independent module” was strange, so I went looking for other uses of the term. I found the GCC Runtime Library Exception which contains a definition, but the GNU Classpath License contains exactly the same text:

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.

As for distribution of your application’s source code. You can distribute it under whatever license you wish – this license doesn’t stop that. If, however, you were to distribute the source code with the OSLib source code then maybe you would have problems.