Home > Archive > Smalltalk > October 2007 > Open Source VOSS
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| John Clapperton 2007-10-03, 7:14 pm |
| VOSS 3.0 for VA Smalltalk is now available under dual licensing: open source GPLv3 and/or Commercial.
Visit www.logicarts.com and click the download button.
John Clapperton
Logic Arts Ltd
| |
| Marten 2007-10-04, 4:24 am |
| On 3 Okt., 18:47, "John Clapperton" <jhc@DELETE_ALL_CAPSntlworld.com>
wrote:
> VOSS 3.0 for VA Smalltalk is now available under dual licensing: open source GPLv3 and/or Commercial.
>
> Visitwww.logicarts.comand click the download button.
>
> John Clapperton
> Logic Arts Ltd
How does this make sense ... according to the license text at your
site, the GPL usage is only possible, when the whole product is under
GPL license ? VASMalltalk is not under GPL license - the dialect, your
application is using.
Marten
| |
| carlg@libertybasic.com 2007-10-04, 7:13 pm |
| On Oct 3, 12:47 pm, "John Clapperton"
<jhc@DELETE_ALL_CAPSntlworld.com> wrote:
> VOSS 3.0 for VA Smalltalk is now available under dual licensing: open source GPLv3 and/or Commercial.
Why did you choose GPL? That tends to scare Smalltalkers away because
of the "linking" issue. Do you add any Smalltalk-friendly permissions
to your licensing?
MIT or BSD would be more attractive.
-Carl Gundel
http://www.runbasic.com
| |
| Marten 2007-10-05, 8:11 am |
| On 4 Okt., 06:21, Marten <mar...@toppoint.de> wrote:
> On 3 Okt., 18:47, "John Clapperton" <jhc@DELETE_ALL_CAPSntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> How does this make sense ... according to the license text at your
> site, the GPL usage is only possible, when the whole product is under
> GPL license ? VASMalltalk is not under GPL license - the dialect, your
> application is using.
>
> Marten
"Note that under the terms of GPL v3 Your entire product incorporating
the Software must comply with the same GPL v3 licence, including the
host Smalltalk Virtual Machine and Runtime System, whose use may be
differently restricted under the terms of its licence."
Actually it means, that you can not use your product using the GPL v3
license, because the virtual machine and the runtime system (in
VASmalltalk) is not GPL3 - that means, nothing has changed at all.
Perhaps now you have no hidden source code any more (if it was
earlier) - but that's all.
One idea behind all this could be, that development for inhouse stuff
could be done - but even the Development case is handled via GPL3
license.
Marten
Marten
| |
| John Clapperton 2007-10-06, 7:12 pm |
| Hi Marten, Carl,
Thanks for your interest. VOSS is offered under dual licensing, GPL and/or Commercial. To clarify, without prejudice, the GPL as I
understand it, and which is the intention in the VOSS licence, distinguishes between end-use and distribution (propagation), and the
GPL "copyleft" requirement, that everything in the same application also be GPL, applies to distribution only.
Modifications to a distributed GPL module must themselves be GPL, and modules statically or dynamically linked into the same
executable must also be GPL, whether the linking is done before or after distribution.
Other software included in a product package, but which runs in a separate operating system process, invoking or invoked by a GPL
module and typically communicating via data streams, would not normally be subject to the GPL, nor does the GPL cross the boundary
between operating system and user space.
An application which includes GPL and non-GPL components may be freely used internally for application development and/or end-use,
including on a web server, though not if it is exported to run behind a client's firewall. The definition of "internally" would
probably include wholly-owned subsidiaries, but not sub-contractors. Legal advice may be necessary (IANAL and the Commercial licence
may be cheaper).
A negotiable Commercial licence, sometimes in any case a customer requirement, is available for VOSS as an alternative, avoiding the
GPL restrictions and including a support package.
Regards,
John
www.logicarts.com
"Marten" <marten@toppoint.de> wrote in message news:1191583192.872440.91500@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Okt., 06:21, Marten <mar...@toppoint.de> wrote:
>
> "Note that under the terms of GPL v3 Your entire product incorporating
> the Software must comply with the same GPL v3 licence, including the
> host Smalltalk Virtual Machine and Runtime System, whose use may be
> differently restricted under the terms of its licence."
>
> Actually it means, that you can not use your product using the GPL v3
> license, because the virtual machine and the runtime system (in
> VASmalltalk) is not GPL3 - that means, nothing has changed at all.
> Perhaps now you have no hidden source code any more (if it was
> earlier) - but that's all.
>
> One idea behind all this could be, that development for inhouse stuff
> could be done - but even the Development case is handled via GPL3
> license.
>
> Marten
>
> Marten
>
| |
| John Clapperton 2007-10-06, 7:12 pm |
| Hi Marten, Carl,
Thanks for your interest. VOSS is offered under dual licensing, GPL and/or Commercial. To clarify, without prejudice, the GPL as I
understand it, and which is the intention in the VOSS licence, distinguishes between end-use and distribution (propagation), and the
GPL "copyleft" requirement, that everything in the same application also be GPL, applies to distribution only.
Modifications to a distributed GPL module must themselves be GPL, and modules statically or dynamically linked into the same
executable must also be GPL, whether the linking is done before or after distribution.
Other software included in a product package, but which runs in a separate operating system process, invoking or invoked by a GPL
module and typically communicating via data streams, would not normally be subject to the GPL, nor does the GPL cross the boundary
between operating system and user space.
An application which includes GPL and non-GPL components may be freely used internally for application development and/or end-use,
including on a web server, though not if it is exported to run behind a client's firewall. The definition of "internally" would
probably include wholly-owned subsidiaries, but not sub-contractors. Legal advice may be necessary (IANAL and the Commercial licence
may be cheaper).
A negotiable Commercial licence, sometimes in any case a customer requirement, is available for VOSS as an alternative, avoiding the
GPL restrictions and including a support package.
Regards,
John
www.logicarts.com
"Marten" <marten@toppoint.de> wrote in message news:1191583192.872440.91500@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Okt., 06:21, Marten <mar...@toppoint.de> wrote:
>
> "Note that under the terms of GPL v3 Your entire product incorporating
> the Software must comply with the same GPL v3 licence, including the
> host Smalltalk Virtual Machine and Runtime System, whose use may be
> differently restricted under the terms of its licence."
>
> Actually it means, that you can not use your product using the GPL v3
> license, because the virtual machine and the runtime system (in
> VASmalltalk) is not GPL3 - that means, nothing has changed at all.
> Perhaps now you have no hidden source code any more (if it was
> earlier) - but that's all.
>
> One idea behind all this could be, that development for inhouse stuff
> could be done - but even the Development case is handled via GPL3
> license.
>
> Marten
>
> Marten
>
| |
| Marten 2007-10-06, 7:12 pm |
| Hello John,
the following text is from your license:
"Note that under the terms of GPL v3 Your entire product incorporating
the Software must comply with the same GPL v3 licence, including the
host Smalltalk Virtual Machine and Runtime System, whose use may be
differently restricted under the terms of its licence."
VOSS runs only under VASmalltalk. According to your license I may
distribute
or develop (!!!) software under the restriction mentioned. If I
interpret
the english text in a correct way (and English is not my first
language),
the Smalltalk Virtual Machine and Runtime System must have the same
GPL v3 license - but how can this be with VA Smalltalk ???
Marten
| |
| jarober 2007-10-06, 7:12 pm |
| Under those terms, the only Smalltalk you could use with VOSS would be
GNU Smalltalk. For a product that isn't designed for GNU Smalltalk,
that seems kind of strange.
On Oct 6, 2:27 pm, Marten <mar...@toppoint.de> wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> the following text is from your license:
>
> "Note that under the terms of GPL v3 Your entire product incorporating
> the Software must comply with the same GPL v3 licence, including the
> host Smalltalk Virtual Machine and Runtime System, whose use may be
> differently restricted under the terms of its licence."
>
> VOSS runs only under VASmalltalk. According to your license I may
> distribute
> or develop (!!!) software under the restriction mentioned. If I
> interpret
> the english text in a correct way (and English is not my first
> language),
> the Smalltalk Virtual Machine and Runtime System must have the same
> GPL v3 license - but how can this be with VA Smalltalk ???
>
> Marten
| |
| Paolo Bonzini 2007-10-07, 4:35 am |
| On Oct 6, 11:26 pm, jarober <jaro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Under those terms, the only Smalltalk you could use with VOSS would be
> GNU Smalltalk. For a product that isn't designed for GNU Smalltalk,
> that seems kind of strange.
Indeed. :-)
[color=darkred]
Also, in general, the virtual machine and so on are considered to fall
under this provision of the GPL: "The source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
component itself accompanies the executable."
Paolo
| |
| Paolo Bonzini 2007-10-07, 4:35 am |
| > "Note that under the terms of GPL v3 Your entire product incorporating
> the Software must comply with the same GPL v3 licence, including the
> host Smalltalk Virtual Machine and Runtime System, whose use may be
> differently restricted under the terms of its licence."
>
> Actually it means, that you can not use your product using the GPL v3
> license, because the virtual machine and the runtime system (in
> VASmalltalk) is not GPL3 - that means, nothing has changed at all.
> Perhaps now you have no hidden source code any more (if it was
> earlier) - but that's all.
No, it means that they are using that provision to call "GPLv3" what
is actually a "non commercial" license. Unless of course one ported
VOSS (whatever it is, I haven't checked yet) to GNU Smalltalk, as
James pointed out. :-)
Paolo
| |
| Bruce Badger 2007-10-07, 7:12 pm |
| jarober wrote:
> Under those terms, the only Smalltalk you could use with VOSS would be
> GNU Smalltalk. For a product that isn't designed for GNU Smalltalk,
> that seems kind of strange.
Surely it's about distribution and not use.
I can download a version of VAST and I can get John's VOSS. AFAIK I can
*use* them together (barring an issues with the VAST license).
The thing is that I could not then *distribute* any code that I wrote
which used VOSS and VAST
.... unless I buy a different kind of permission (i.e. a different
license) from John. And I think that's the point.
| |
| Marten 2007-10-08, 4:27 am |
| Even the development case - no distribution - is handled under the GPL
license ...
GPL DEVELOPMENT LICENCE
Development Use of the Software may be licensed under the GNU General
Public Licence Version 3 ("GPL v3"), details of which may be found at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html Note that under the
terms of GPL v3 Your entire product incorporating the Software must
comply with the same GPL v3 licence, including the host Smalltalk
Virtual Machine and Development System, whose use may be differently
restricted under the terms of its licence.
| |
| Bruce Badger 2007-10-08, 4:27 am |
| Marten wrote:
> Even the development case - no distribution - is handled under the GPL
> license ...
>
> GPL DEVELOPMENT LICENCE
> Development Use of the Software may be licensed under the GNU General
> Public Licence Version 3 ("GPL v3"), details of which may be found at
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html Note that under the
> terms of GPL v3 Your entire product incorporating the Software must
> comply with the same GPL v3 licence, including the host Smalltalk
> Virtual Machine and Development System, whose use may be differently
> restricted under the terms of its licence.
From the page you linked to:
"Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you *distribute* copies
of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the
freedom of others."
I have highlighted the word distribute, otherwise this is verbatim.
Where in the GPL do you see restrictions on *use*?
| |
| Paolo Bonzini 2007-10-08, 7:13 pm |
|
> Why did you choose GPL? That tends to scare Smalltalkers away because
> of the "linking" issue. Do you add any Smalltalk-friendly permissions
> to your licensing?
The GPL has no linking issue. The LGPL has.
(By the way, I have to correct myself -- VOSS's usage of the GPL is
more of a "server" license than a "non-commercial" license. There is
nowhere written that you cannot make money out of a website that uses
GPL VOSS.)
Paolo
| |
| Marten 2007-10-08, 7:13 pm |
| On 8 Okt., 10:57, Bruce Badger <bbad...@openskills.com> wrote:
> Marten wrote:
>
>
> From the page you linked to:
>
> "Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you *distribute* copies
> of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the
> freedom of others."
>
> I have highlighted the word distribute, otherwise this is verbatim.
>
> Where in the GPL do you see restrictions on *use*?
I thought that "Development Use of the software" means, that when I
use the
library to develop my software the whole software I use MUST be
covered
under GPL !? But as I said: English is not my first language ... what
does "Development use" mean ?
Marten
| |
| Bruce Badger 2007-10-09, 4:28 am |
| Marten wrote:
> On 8 Okt., 10:57, Bruce Badger <bbad...@openskills.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I thought that "Development Use of the software" means, that when I
> use the
> library to develop my software the whole software I use MUST be
> covered
> under GPL !? But as I said: English is not my first language ... what
> does "Development use" mean ?
I don't know exactly what John meant by "development", we would have to
ask him. We can see that he says "development" is defined by the GPL v3.
The assertion that the GPL limits *use* is, by my reading, incorrect ...
but IANAL. In fact, having read the GPL3 license further, it seems that
one can do anything at all with a private copy of a GPLed work as long
as you do not "convey" it (convey being the term used in place of
"distribute"). In this regard the essence of the GPL v3 is the same as
for the previous version of the GPL.
But if you can point to the part of the GPL which suggests that the
above is not true, I'd be very interested.
| |
| John Clapperton 2007-10-09, 7:24 pm |
|
"Bruce Badger" <bbadger@openskills.com> wrote in message news:w_WdnU_gbN6ghJbanZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@to
tallyobjects.com...
> ...
> I don't know exactly what John meant by "development", we would have to ask him. We can see that he says "development" is defined
> by the GPL v3.
>
> The assertion that the GPL limits *use* is, by my reading, incorrect ... but IANAL. In fact, having read the GPL3 license
> further, it seems that one can do anything at all with a private copy of a GPLed work as long as you do not "convey" it (convey
> being the term used in place of "distribute"). In this regard the essence of the GPL v3 is the same as for the previous version of
> the GPL.
>
> But if you can point to the part of the GPL which suggests that the above is not true, I'd be very interested.
Hi Bruce,
(Without prejudice) The licence mentions Development and Runtime separately because the VAST licence does, distinguishing between
the development system including compiler etc, and the runtime executable. The GPL distinguishes along the "orthogonal axis" of Use
and Distribution, so the VOSS licence makes it clear that the GPL constraints on distribution apply whether the distribution is in a
development system (admittedly unlikely) or a runtime executable.
John
www.logicarts.com
|
|
|
|
|