[Developers] ADMB-IDE licensing

[dave fournier]

anders at nielsensweb.org wrote:

Just as an aside I looked at this when the R people were baiting me and
it seemed that just because you GPL your software does not give anyone
the right
to demand anything from you since you are still the copyright holder.
> Hi Arni,
>
> I second that!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Anders.
>
>   
>> Arni -
>> You clearly have educated yourself well on these matters. I look forward
>> to giving your IDE a try.
>> Thanks for efforts.
>> John
>>
>> Arni Magnusson wrote:
>>     
>>> All right, here are some references I have found regarding licensing
>>> of aggregates that include GPL components. I'm assuming everyone on
>>> developers at admb-project.org is interested in how these things work,
>>> and I'm also hoping that some of you understand this better than I do.
>>> Please let me know if your interpretation of the licenses differs from
>>> mine.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2006-May/106245.html
>>>
>>> The dicussion following the GPL licensing of glmmADMB highlights the
>>> main issue, even though ADMB has gone open source since that discussion.
>>>
>>> ADMB uses BSD to allow users to release models as proprietary
>>> executables. When this is done, it must be made clear to all
>>> recipients that they are not allowed to bundle that executable inside
>>> a GPL package. Any package user can then insist to have the source
>>> code for the executable, so it would lose its proprietary status.
>>>
>>> An important question is whether ADMB users are allowed to bundle BSD
>>> executables inside a GPL package. The knee-jerk response is no, but
>>> I'm not so sure. If glmmADMB is released as a GPL package today, then
>>> R users have the right to see, modify, and share source code - meaning
>>> the TPL and C++ code, even of ADMB itself. What they cannot is to
>>> alter the BSD license of that model (since it does not call R), much
>>> less of ADMB itself.
>>>
>>> This is walking on a thin line that we need to understand fully. What
>>> is your understanding of this issue? This is not relevant for
>>> ADMB-IDE, by the way, as shown below.
>>>
>>>
>>> [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
>>>
>>> The ADMB-IDE installer is an aggregate, distributing separate programs
>>> together in one installer archive. The GPL permits me to create and
>>> distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software
>>> are non-free or GPL-incompatible.
>>>
>>> The only condition is that I cannot release the installer under a
>>> license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each
>>> program's individual license would grant them. This means that ADMB,
>>> GCC, and Emacs must include their original licence text inside each
>>> directory.
>>>
>>>
>>> [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCompatInstaller
>>>
>>> The license of the installation software does affect the installed
>>> components, any more than a zip file would.
>>>
>>>
>>> [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonFreeTools
>>>
>>> Which programs you use to edit the source code, or to compile it, or
>>> study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues
>>> concerning the licensing of that source code. In other words, it's
>>> nobody's business whether you use Emacs with ADMB-IDE, Notepad, diff,
>>> Visual C++, or any other other programs to work with ADMB code.
>>>
>>>
>>> [5] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
>>>
>>> Using Emacs, GCC, or other GPL programs to write and compile code does
>>> not place any license restrictions on the code or executables.
>>>
>>>
>>> [5] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
>>>
>>> My admb-mode and .emacs components call Emacs and therefore need to be
>>> GPL-compatible. Potential licenses include GPL, LGPL, and BSD.
>>>
>>>
>>> [6] http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section4
>>>
>>> GPL legalese, saying that my distribution of Emacs and GCC is called
>>> "conveying verbatim copies". The original license text should be
>>> intact inside their directories.
>>>
>>>
>>> [7] http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section5
>>>
>>> GPL legalese, where the last paragraph rephrases item [2].
>>>
>>>
>>> [8] http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section6
>>>
>>> GPL legalese, where option 6b says I should indicate where GCC and
>>> Emacs can be downloaded in source code form. That's
>>> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/ and ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gcc/.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> In short, it looks like I can distribute the simple click'n'go
>>> installer, where each component has its own license. I don't think it
>>> really matters which GPL-compatible license I use for my admb-mode and
>>> .emacs (BSD, GPL, LGPL), so I guess I'll go for BSD to align them with
>>> ADMB.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Arni
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Developers mailing list
>>> Developers at admb-project.org
>>> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>> Visit the ADMB project http://admb-project.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Developers mailing list
>> Developers at admb-project.org
>> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>>
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at admb-project.org
> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>
>   


-- 
David A. Fournier
P.O. Box 2040, 
Sidney, B.C. V8l 3S3
Canada
Phone/FAX 250-655-3364
http://otter-rsch.com