(k)Taskbrowser license issue

Hello all,

I think orocos has a major license issue which causes that all orocos
programs that are using (k)taskbrowser have to be released under the GPL
license. I don't think that this is industry friendly [1] as orocos
claims to be. I think that the website should be updated such that
someone that want to use the (k)taskbrowser knows that his program
should be GPL-ed OR we should remove these (readline/Qt) dependency's.

Let's explain me, both taskbrowser, ktaskbrower are using GPL-licensed
library's (readline[2] and Qt [3]). By using GPL-licensed library's the
(k)taskbrowser should also be? licensed under a GPL license [4]. And
therefor all your programs that are using (k)taskbrowser.

If you use the deployer-component this problem remains. When you start
the deployer, you load all your components. These components are
"Plugins" to the deployer. Because the (k)taskbrowser interact with you
program, they also need to be licensed under the GPL [5].

François

[1] http://www.orocos.org/orocos/license
[2] http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/readline/rltop.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(toolkit)
[4] ?http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
[5] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

(k)Taskbrowser license issue

On Sunday 22 June 2008 15:21:43 François Cauwe wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I think orocos has a major license issue which causes that all orocos
> programs that are using (k)taskbrowser have to be released under the GPL
> license. I don't think that this is industry friendly [1] as orocos
> claims to be. I think that the website should be updated such that
> someone that want to use the (k)taskbrowser knows that his program
> should be GPL-ed OR we should remove these (readline/Qt) dependency's.

I call bull on that. You are clearly not knowledgeable about how the GPL works
or what it enforces.

>
> Let's explain me, both taskbrowser, ktaskbrower are using GPL-licensed
> library's (readline[2] and Qt [3]). By using GPL-licensed library's the
> (k)taskbrowser should also be? licensed under a GPL license [4]. And
> therefor all your programs that are using (k)taskbrowser.

This is a complete mixup of the facts.

First ktaskbrowser. This GUI uses KDE and is clearly licensed as GPL.
It 'uses' the CORBA idl interface of the RTT (GPL+linking exception) to
communicate with components over a network covered by any license (due to the
RTT license). The Orocos application with which it communicates is clearly
independent of the ktaskbrowser and covered by its own license, the
Ktaskbrowser is/remains GPL. The Orocos application is *not* a derived work
from the ktaskbrowser/QT/KDE. It does *not* link against it.

Next, the 'TaskBrowser' component. This component is linked against the GPL
readline library. As such, this component, the 'deployer' and 'ctaskbrowser'
applications are all covered by the GPL[*]. The 'cdeployer' for example, is
not a GPL application, as it does not use the TaskBrowser but only
the 'DeploymentComponent' which is LGPL.

>
> If you use the deployer-component this problem remains. When you start
> the deployer, you load all your components. These components are
> "Plugins" to the deployer. Because the (k)taskbrowser interact with you
> program, they also need to be licensed under the GPL [5].

It's rediculous to think that you can force a library covered by the LGPL to
become GPL because you wrote a GPL extension to it. This is just turning the
facts upside down. By the way, the GPL does not state that linked software
must be licensed under the GPL, it states that a GPL-compatible license is
sufficient!

Although you might think that the components are plugins of the taskbrowser,
they are in fact plugins of the OCL DeploymentComponent, which is covered by
LGPL and hence allows non-free (incompatible) components to be loaded. The
only potential problem I see is that when you use the 'deployer' application
(GPL, derived from readline), you would not be allowed to load
GPL-incompatible components. From the FAQ:

"If the [GPL] program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls
to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single
program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and
the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a
GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be
followed when those plug-ins are distributed."

The only conclusion I can draw is that the deployer is fine, as long as it
only loads GPL-compatible components (the complete OCL is GPL compatible). It
would not be allowed to load others. For those fearing that a lawyer jumps up
behind their back when doing so anyway, we could make a LGPL deployer which
does not depend on readline (which is only providing us TAB completion and
history).

If I look hard, I could see a problem, but in reality, there isn't one.

Peter

[*] I must admit the licenses of these files are not correctly stating GPL
yet. That is a bug.

(k)Taskbrowser license issue

Op maandag 23-06-2008 om 00:36 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Peter
Soetens:
> On Sunday 22 June 2008 15:21:43 François Cauwe wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I think orocos has a major license issue which causes that all orocos
> > programs that are using (k)taskbrowser have to be released under the GPL
> > license. I don't think that this is industry friendly [1] as orocos
> > claims to be. I think that the website should be updated such that
> > someone that want to use the (k)taskbrowser knows that his program
> > should be GPL-ed OR we should remove these (readline/Qt) dependency's.
>
> I call bull on that. You are clearly not knowledgeable about how the GPL works
> or what it enforces.

I think you language is a bit strong here. You agree later in your email
that there is a problem, so it seems that I still know a bit about
it :). It's true that my statements don't apply to orocos programs that
are using corba to communicate. Therefor I'm wrong about ktaskbrowser,
sorry about that.

[...]
?
> Although you might think that the components are plugins of the taskbrowser,
> they are in fact plugins of the OCL DeploymentComponent, which is covered by
> LGPL and hence allows non-free (incompatible) components to be loaded. The
> only potential problem I see is that when you use the 'deployer' application
> (GPL, derived from readline), you would not be allowed to load
> GPL-incompatible components. From the FAQ:
>
> "If the [GPL] program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls
> to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single
> program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and
> the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a
> GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be
> followed when those plug-ins are distributed."
>
> The only conclusion I can draw is that the deployer is fine, as long as it
> only loads GPL-compatible components (the complete OCL is GPL compatible). It
> would not be allowed to load others. For those fearing that a lawyer jumps up
> behind their back when doing so anyway, we could make a LGPL deployer which
> does not depend on readline (which is only providing us TAB completion and
> history).
>
?
This is the actual point I tried to make, but where I forgot the corba
network communcation thing. This actually covers much more than the
deployer. It covers _all_ orocos programs that are using the commandline
interface. For the moment most applications do (when they don't use
corba).

> If I look hard, I could see a problem, but in reality, there isn't one.
I think it is a problem for every big company that want to do business,
really. Although I think it can't be so hard to fix, so it's not such a
big deal, but it needs to be addressed. By removing readline dependency
or by stating it on the website/licenses file.

> [*] I must admit the licenses of these files are not correctly stating GPL
> yet. That is a bug.

François

(k)Taskbrowser license issue

On Monday 23 June 2008 10:30:40 François Cauwe wrote:
> Op maandag 23-06-2008 om 00:36 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Peter
>
> Soetens:
> > On Sunday 22 June 2008 15:21:43 François Cauwe wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I think orocos has a major license issue which causes that all orocos
> > > programs that are using (k)taskbrowser have to be released under the
> > > GPL license. I don't think that this is industry friendly [1] as orocos
> > > claims to be. I think that the website should be updated such that
> > > someone that want to use the (k)taskbrowser knows that his program
> > > should be GPL-ed OR we should remove these (readline/Qt) dependency's.
> >
> > I call bull on that. You are clearly not knowledgeable about how the GPL
> > works or what it enforces.
>
> I think you language is a bit strong here. You agree later in your email
> that there is a problem, so it seems that I still know a bit about
> it :).

Knowing a bit about license issues and then drawing some conclusions is as
good as knowing nothing and drawing the some conclusions. Your statements
above were *all* plain wrong.

> It's true that my statements don't apply to orocos programs that
> are using corba to communicate. Therefor I'm wrong about ktaskbrowser,
> sorry about that.
>
> [...]
> ?
>
> > Although you might think that the components are plugins of the
> > taskbrowser, they are in fact plugins of the OCL DeploymentComponent,
> > which is covered by LGPL and hence allows non-free (incompatible)
> > components to be loaded. The only potential problem I see is that when
> > you use the 'deployer' application (GPL, derived from readline), you
> > would not be allowed to load
> > GPL-incompatible components. From the FAQ:
> >
> > "If the [GPL] program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
> > calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
> > single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main
> > program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under
> > the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of
> > the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed."
> >
> > The only conclusion I can draw is that the deployer is fine, as long as
> > it only loads GPL-compatible components (the complete OCL is GPL
> > compatible). It would not be allowed to load others. For those fearing
> > that a lawyer jumps up behind their back when doing so anyway, we could
> > make a LGPL deployer which does not depend on readline (which is only
> > providing us TAB completion and history).
>
> ?
> This is the actual point I tried to make,

The point you made was completely different. You claimed that Orocos
applications must be GPL'd, which is outright wrong. I wrote that, when using
the TaskBrowser, the components you use must have a compatible license when
they are loaded at that very moment. It does not impose any license issues to
Orocos applications in general nor does it force you to 'release' your
component as GPL. Again, I'm sure you don't know what you are talking about.
Maybe you should read the GPL license *and* the FAQ completely, before
continuing this discussion. The GPL is quite readable in comparison with
traditional software licenses.

> but where I forgot the corba
> network communcation thing. This actually covers much more than the
> deployer. It covers _all_ orocos programs that are using the commandline
> interface. For the moment most applications do (when they don't use
> corba).

I don't see the TaskBrowser sitting in a 'real' application. The TaskBrowser
is a development tool, not an end-user tool that is shipped with a product!

>
> > If I look hard, I could see a problem, but in reality, there isn't one.
>
> I think it is a problem for every big company that want to do business,
> really.

This sentence is complete nonsense.

> Although I think it can't be so hard to fix, so it's not such a
> big deal, but it needs to be addressed. By removing readline dependency
> or by stating it on the website/licenses file.

I'll add a ORO_NO_GPL flag to the TaskBrowser source to allow the 'deployer'
application to load non-free components, but your conclusions are still
wrong. Not a word needs to be changed on the website.

Peter

Taskbrowser license issue

Op maandag 23-06-2008 om 11:00 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Peter
Soetens:

[...]

> > This is the actual point I tried to make,
>
> The point you made was completely different. You claimed that Orocos
> applications must be GPL'd, which is outright wrong. I wrote that, when using
> the TaskBrowser, the components you use must have a compatible license when
> they are loaded at that very moment.
Like I said before, this is the point I wanted to make, believe me or
not. I didn't ment to generalize it to all orocos application, I just
wanted to say: An application that uses taskbrowser and closed source
components is not compatible with the GPL.

I said:

Quote:

?Let's explain me, both taskbrowser, ktaskbrower are using GPL-licensed
library's (readline[2] and Qt [3]). By using GPL-licensed library's the
(k)taskbrowser should also be? licensed under a GPL license [4]. And
therefor all your programs that are using (k)taskbrowser.

I agree I generalized it to ktaskbrowser without looking carefully to
the structure of it. *BUT* the rest of the sentence is still correct. I
will reformulate the sentence to make sure you understand me correctly:
??Taskbrowser is using a GPL-licensed library (readline). By using
GPL-licensed library's the taskbrowser should also be? licensed under
the GPL license [4]. Therefor all your programs that are using
taskbrowser should be licensed under a GPL compatible license

And as far as I understand, it seems you with me agree on this one:
?[quote from Peter]
Next, the 'TaskBrowser' component. This component is linked against the
GPL readline library. As such, this component, the 'deployer' and
'ctaskbrowser' applications are all covered by the GPL[*]. The
'cdeployer' for example, is not a GPL application, as it does not use
the TaskBrowser but only the 'DeploymentComponent' which is LGPL.
[/quote]

[quote? from Peter]
?The only conclusion I can draw is that the deployer is fine, as long as
it only loads GPL-compatible components (the complete OCL is GPL
compatible). It would not be allowed to load others.
[/quote]

So point me to the point where I make a mistake in my thinking?

> > but where I forgot the corba
> > network communcation thing. This actually covers much more than the
> > deployer. It covers _all_ orocos programs that are using the commandline
> > interface. For the moment most applications do (when they don't use
> > corba).
>
> I don't see the TaskBrowser sitting in a 'real' application. The TaskBrowser
> is a development tool, not an end-user tool that is shipped with a product!

Does that mean that you can forget about licenses?

[...]

> I'll add a ORO_NO_GPL flag to the TaskBrowser source to allow the 'deployer'
> application to load non-free components

What do you mean with that?

François

Taskbrowser license issue

On Monday 23 June 2008 12:42:16 François Cauwe wrote:
>
> I agree I generalized it to ktaskbrowser without looking carefully to
> the structure of it. *BUT* the rest of the sentence is still correct. I
> will reformulate the sentence to make sure you understand me correctly:
> ??Taskbrowser is using a GPL-licensed library (readline). By using
> GPL-licensed library's the taskbrowser should also be? licensed under
> the GPL license [4]. Therefor all your programs that are using
> taskbrowser should be licensed under a GPL compatible license

You replaced the word 'released' with 'licensed'. That's in the right
direction, but I would prefer the term 'covered by the GPL'. Licensed implies
that you distributed to a third party (IANAL...)

>
> And as far as I understand, it seems you with me agree on this one:
> ?[quote from Peter]
> Next, the 'TaskBrowser' component. This component is linked against the
> GPL readline library. As such, this component, the 'deployer' and
> 'ctaskbrowser' applications are all covered by the GPL[*]. The
> 'cdeployer' for example, is not a GPL application, as it does not use
> the TaskBrowser but only the 'DeploymentComponent' which is LGPL.
> [/quote]
>
> [quote? from Peter]
> ?The only conclusion I can draw is that the deployer is fine, as long as
> it only loads GPL-compatible components (the complete OCL is GPL
> compatible). It would not be allowed to load others.
> [/quote]

To the point: today you can't load third-party, non-free components using
the 'deployer' application.

>
> So point me to the point where I make a mistake in my thinking?

You corrected yourself in the process. The main mistake is that as long as you
are not distributing your software (a company / copyrightholder can choose to
do so) and you hold copyright over that software, there isn't an issue.
Remember, the GPL gives you the _right_ to modify and distribute the
software. The GPL does not _force_ you to distribute software covered by the
GPL. It is common practice to modify and extend GPL software, but keep the
software within the company.

> >
> > I don't see the TaskBrowser sitting in a 'real' application. The
> > TaskBrowser is a development tool, not an end-user tool that is shipped
> > with a product!
>
> Does that mean that you can forget about licenses?

No. It means you're not distributing your software with a GPL program, hence,
the distributed application is not covered by the GPL.

>
> [...]
>
> > I'll add a ORO_NO_GPL flag to the TaskBrowser source to allow the
> > 'deployer' application to load non-free components
>
> What do you mean with that?

That I will #ifdef the readline code such that when compiling
with -DORO_NO_GPL, the code is left out and no GPL code is present in the
executable.

Peter

Taskbrowser license issue

sspr wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 12:42:16 François Cauwe wrote:
>
> I agree I generalized it to ktaskbrowser without looking carefully to
> the structure of it. *BUT* the rest of the sentence is still correct. I
> will reformulate the sentence to make sure you understand me correctly:
> ??Taskbrowser is using a GPL-licensed library (readline). By using
> GPL-licensed library's the taskbrowser should also be? licensed under
> the GPL license [4]. Therefor all your programs that are using
> taskbrowser should be licensed under a GPL compatible license

You replaced the word 'released' with 'licensed'. That's in the right
direction, but I would prefer the term 'covered by the GPL'. Licensed implies
that you distributed to a third party (IANAL...)

>
> And as far as I understand, it seems you with me agree on this one:
> ?[quote from Peter]
> Next, the 'TaskBrowser' component. This component is linked against the
> GPL readline library. As such, this component, the 'deployer' and
> 'ctaskbrowser' applications are all covered by the GPL[*]. The
> 'cdeployer' for example, is not a GPL application, as it does not use
> the TaskBrowser but only the 'DeploymentComponent' which is LGPL.
>


>
> [quote? from Peter]
> ?The only conclusion I can draw is that the deployer is fine, as long as
> it only loads GPL-compatible components (the complete OCL is GPL
> compatible). It would not be allowed to load others.
> [/quote]

To the point: today you can't load third-party, non-free components using
the 'deployer' application.

>
> So point me to the point where I make a mistake in my thinking?

You corrected yourself in the process. The main mistake is that as long as you
are not distributing your software (a company / copyrightholder can choose to
do so) and you hold copyright over that software, there isn't an issue.
Remember, the GPL gives you the _right_ to modify and distribute the
software. The GPL does not _force_ you to distribute software covered by the
GPL. It is common practice to modify and extend GPL software, but keep the
software within the company.

> >
> > I don't see the TaskBrowser sitting in a 'real' application. The
> > TaskBrowser is a development tool, not an end-user tool that is shipped
> > with a product!
>
> Does that mean that you can forget about licenses?

No. It means you're not distributing your software with a GPL program, hence,
the distributed application is not covered by the GPL.

>
> [...]
>
> > I'll add a ORO_NO_GPL flag to the TaskBrowser source to allow the
> > 'deployer' application to load non-free components
>
> What do you mean with that?

That I will #ifdef the readline code such that when compiling
with -DORO_NO_GPL, the code is left out and no GPL code is present in the
executable.

Peter[/quote]

--
Orocos-Dev mailing list
Orocos-Dev [..] ...
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev

Taskbrowser license issue

sspr wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 12:42:16 François Cauwe wrote:
>
> I agree I generalized it to ktaskbrowser without looking carefully to
> the structure of it. *BUT* the rest of the sentence is still correct. I
> will reformulate the sentence to make sure you understand me correctly:
> ??Taskbrowser is using a GPL-licensed library (readline). By using
> GPL-licensed library's the taskbrowser should also be? licensed under
> the GPL license [4]. Therefor all your programs that are using
> taskbrowser should be licensed under a GPL compatible license

You replaced the word 'released' with 'licensed'. That's in the right
direction, but I would prefer the term 'covered by the GPL'. Licensed implies
that you distributed to a third party (IANAL...)

>
> And as far as I understand, it seems you with me agree on this one:
> ?[quote from Peter]
> Next, the 'TaskBrowser' component. This component is linked against the
> GPL readline library. As such, this component, the 'deployer' and
> 'ctaskbrowser' applications are all covered by the GPL[*]. The
> 'cdeployer' for example, is not a GPL application, as it does not use
> the TaskBrowser but only the 'DeploymentComponent' which is LGPL.
>


>
> [quote? from Peter]
> ?The only conclusion I can draw is that the deployer is fine, as long as
> it only loads GPL-compatible components (the complete OCL is GPL
> compatible). It would not be allowed to load others.
> [/quote]

To the point: today you can't load third-party, non-free components using
the 'deployer' application.

>
> So point me to the point where I make a mistake in my thinking?

You corrected yourself in the process. The main mistake is that as long as you
are not distributing your software (a company / copyrightholder can choose to
do so) and you hold copyright over that software, there isn't an issue.
Remember, the GPL gives you the _right_ to modify and distribute the
software. The GPL does not _force_ you to distribute software covered by the
GPL. It is common practice to modify and extend GPL software, but keep the
software within the company.

> >
> > I don't see the TaskBrowser sitting in a 'real' application. The
> > TaskBrowser is a development tool, not an end-user tool that is shipped
> > with a product!
>
> Does that mean that you can forget about licenses?

No. It means you're not distributing your software with a GPL program, hence,
the distributed application is not covered by the GPL.

>
> [...]
>
> > I'll add a ORO_NO_GPL flag to the TaskBrowser source to allow the
> > 'deployer' application to load non-free components
>
> What do you mean with that?

That I will #ifdef the readline code such that when compiling
with -DORO_NO_GPL, the code is left out and no GPL code is present in the
executable.

Peter[/quote]

--
Orocos-Dev mailing list
Orocos-Dev [..] ...
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev

Re: Taskbrowser license issue

Web interface not working properly. Duplicate message deleted.

Taskbrowser license issue

PLEASE NOTE: The web interface to the "forum" messed this up. The web submit made it look as if I had submitted the message.

Peter has already replied to the message.

-----Original Message-----

CORRECTION:
This was from Peter S "sspr" on 2008-June-23
To: orocos-dev [..] ...
Subject: Re: [Orocos-Dev] Taskbrowser license issue

sspr wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 12:42:16 François Cauwe wrote:
>
> I agree I generalized it to ktaskbrowser without looking carefully to
> the structure of it. *BUT* the rest of the sentence is still correct. I
> will reformulate the sentence to make sure you understand me correctly:
> ??Taskbrowser is using a GPL-licensed library (readline). By using
> GPL-licensed library's the taskbrowser should also be? licensed under
> the GPL license [4]. Therefor all your programs that are using
> taskbrowser should be licensed under a GPL compatible license

You replaced the word 'released' with 'licensed'. That's in the right
direction, but I would prefer the term 'covered by the GPL'. Licensed implies
that you distributed to a third party (IANAL...)

>
> And as far as I understand, it seems you with me agree on this one:
> ?[quote from Peter]
> Next, the 'TaskBrowser' component. This component is linked against the
> GPL readline library. As such, this component, the 'deployer' and
> 'ctaskbrowser' applications are all covered by the GPL[*]. The
> 'cdeployer' for example, is not a GPL application, as it does not use
> the TaskBrowser but only the 'DeploymentComponent' which is LGPL.
>


>
> [quote? from Peter]
> ?The only conclusion I can draw is that the deployer is fine, as long as
> it only loads GPL-compatible components (the complete OCL is GPL
> compatible). It would not be allowed to load others.
> [/quote]

To the point: today you can't load third-party, non-free components using
the 'deployer' application.

>
> So point me to the point where I make a mistake in my thinking?

You corrected yourself in the process. The main mistake is that as long as you
are not distributing your software (a company / copyrightholder can choose to
do so) and you hold copyright over that software, there isn't an issue.
Remember, the GPL gives you the _right_ to modify and distribute the
software. The GPL does not _force_ you to distribute software covered by the
GPL. It is common practice to modify and extend GPL software, but keep the
software within the company.

> >
> > I don't see the TaskBrowser sitting in a 'real' application. The
> > TaskBrowser is a development tool, not an end-user tool that is shipped
> > with a product!
>
> Does that mean that you can forget about licenses?

No. It means you're not distributing your software with a GPL program, hence,
the distributed application is not covered by the GPL.

>
> [...]
>
> > I'll add a ORO_NO_GPL flag to the TaskBrowser source to allow the
> > 'deployer' application to load non-free components
>
> What do you mean with that?

That I will #ifdef the readline code such that when compiling
with -DORO_NO_GPL, the code is left out and no GPL code is present in the
executable.

Peter[/quote]

Re: Taskbrowser license issue

sspr wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 12:42:16 François Cauwe wrote: >

> I agree I generalized it to ktaskbrowser without looking carefully to > the structure of it. *BUT* the rest of the sentence is still correct. I > will reformulate the sentence to make sure you understand me correctly: > ??Taskbrowser is using a GPL-licensed library (readline). By using > GPL-licensed library's the taskbrowser should also be? licensed under > the GPL license [4]. Therefor all your programs that are using > taskbrowser should be licensed under a GPL compatible license

You replaced the word 'released' with 'licensed'. That's in the right direction, but I would prefer the term 'covered by the GPL'. Licensed implies that you distributed to a third party (IANAL...)

> > And as far as I understand, it seems you with me agree on this one: > ?[quote from Peter] > Next, the 'TaskBrowser' component. This component is linked against the > GPL readline library. As such, this component, the 'deployer' and > 'ctaskbrowser' applications are all covered by the GPL[*]. The > 'cdeployer' for example, is not a GPL application, as it does not use > the TaskBrowser but only the 'DeploymentComponent' which is LGPL. >
>

> [quote? from Peter] > ?The only conclusion I can draw is that the deployer is fine, as long as > it only loads GPL-compatible components (the complete OCL is GPL > compatible). It would not be allowed to load others. > [/quote]

To the point: today you can't load third-party, non-free components using the 'deployer' application.

> > So point me to the point where I make a mistake in my thinking?

You corrected yourself in the process. The main mistake is that as long as you are not distributing your software (a company / copyrightholder can choose to do so) and you hold copyright over that software, there isn't an issue. Remember, the GPL gives you the _right_ to modify and distribute the software. The GPL does not _force_ you to distribute software covered by the GPL. It is common practice to modify and extend GPL software, but keep the software within the company.

> > > > I don't see the TaskBrowser sitting in a 'real' application. The > > TaskBrowser is a development tool, not an end-user tool that is shipped > > with a product! >

> Does that mean that you can forget about licenses?

No. It means you're not distributing your software with a GPL program, hence, the distributed application is not covered by the GPL.

> > [...] >> > I'll add a ORO_NO_GPL flag to the TaskBrowser source to allow the > > 'deployer' application to load non-free components >

> What do you mean with that?

That I will #ifdef the readline code such that when compiling with -DORO_NO_GPL, the code is left out and no GPL code is present in the executable.

Peter [/quote]

Taskbrowser license issue

[NB Third attempt: web interface bug losing message "comment"]

While this is an old thread, it is perhaps of current importance. (Note that IANAL.) The facts as they appear to me are:

1) The TaskBrowser ordinarily links with the GNU readline library.

2) The GNU readline library is GPL-ed, without exceptions.

3) The Orocos web page states that the "KDL and OCL software are licensed as LGPL software", specifically stating that any "derived work may be distributed under any license you see fit". Towards the beginning of the "Tutorial on the Component Interface" there is a mention of the use of the readline library in order to provide tab completion.

4) There are alternatives to the GNU readline library, such as the BSD editline library.

If an organization writes distributes code that links with the TaskBrowser and also with the readline library, that organization is required to make its code available under the GPL.

Questions:

a) Are the above statements correct?

b) Could an alternative such as editline be used instead of readline?

c) Is any other GPL code being used?

d) Should the licence statement, manuals and tutorials be clarified?

/Alex

Re: Taskbrowser license issue

[NB Third attempt: web interface bug losing message "comment"]

While this is an old thread, it is perhaps of current importance. (Note that IANAL.) The facts as they appear to me are:

1) The TaskBrowser ordinarily links with the GNU readline library.

2) The GNU readline library is GPL-ed, without exceptions.

3) The Orocos web page states that the "KDL and OCL software are licensed as LGPL software", specifically stating that any "derived work may be distributed under any license you see fit". Towards the beginning of the "Tutorial on the Component Interface" there is a mention of the use of the readline library in order to provide tab completion.

4) There are alternatives to the GNU readline library, such as the BSD editline library.

If an organization writes distributes code that links with the TaskBrowser and also with the readline library, that organization is required to make its code available under the GPL.

Questions:

a) Are the above statements correct?

b) Could an alternative such as editline be used instead of readline?

c) Is any other GPL code being used?

d) Should the licence statement, manuals and tutorials be clarified?

/Alex

Taskbrowser license issue

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 22:49, <alex [dot] stark [..] ...> wrote:
> [NB Third attempt: web interface bug losing message "comment"]

Strange, because they did appear on the list. You clicked submit, but
your text was gone ?

>
> While this is an old thread, it is perhaps of current importance.  (Note that IANAL.)  The facts as they appear to me are:
>
> 1) The TaskBrowser ordinarily links with the GNU readline library.

Yes

>
> 2) The GNU readline library is GPL-ed, without exceptions.

Yes

>
> 3) The Orocos web page states that the "KDL and OCL software are licensed as LGPL software", specifically stating that any "derived work may be distributed under any license you see fit".  Towards the beginning of the "Tutorial on the Component Interface" there is a mention of the use of the readline library in order to provide tab completion.

Yes

>
> 4) There are alternatives to the GNU readline library, such as the BSD editline library.

I have not investigated how far editline can replace readline.

>
>
> If an organization writes distributes code that links with the TaskBrowser and also with the readline library, that organization is required to make its code available under the GPL.

Yes. But you need to link against it. If you use the corba deployers +
ctasbrowser, there is no linking involved. On the otherhand
ctaskbrowser is not 100% feature complete since the CORBA interface is
not 100% feature complete.

>
>
> Questions:
>
> a) Are the above statements correct?

Yes

>
> b) Could an alternative such as editline be used instead of readline?

Probably

>
> c) Is any other GPL code being used?

Not that I know of. But I don't know all code in OCL. RTT is clean.

>
> d) Should the licence statement, manuals and tutorials be clarified?

If anything at all needs to be fixed, it's the code. But we fixed
that. The statements represent what Orocos is about and is
unchangeable, but I guess a note about NO_GPL could be added to the
manual. The taskbrowser is a developer's tool, ordinarily not shipped
in a product. If you need to ship it, then you can choose between both
options, with their consequences. Our unit tests are GPL, the
ktaskbrowser, depending on KDE3 is GPL, I didn't hear complaints yet.
The reality is that our toolchain is a mix of GPL + LGPL, but what
gets into a product contains only GPL code if you choose to.

Peter