Licensing

[hpesoj]

Recently I've been looking at different licenses for an open source project I am working on which uses Newton, and have noticed that the licensing for Newton could do with some clarification.

Firstly, the license on the website reads as though it is specifically for version 1.53. The license should be updated to include version 2, or perhaps just made to apply to any version of Newton. Additionally, I think a copy of the license should be included with Newton, just to be safe.

Secondly, it's great that you have released the joint library, maths library, and related code as open source, but the current license doesn't cover modification of the source code. Perhaps a separate permissive license like zlib should be used for the open source bits, seeing as people using the libraries will be using the Newton binary anyway?

I'm not bringing this up because I expect you to suddenly enforce your copyright on the source code, but potential Newton users may be deterred if the licensing is not immediately obvious.

[Julio Jerez]

all source code that comes with Newton is free, any one can use it as they wish.
you can use as it, you can add to it, you can re-write it you can even use as your own proprietary code, yes you can put a lable on top saying it is your.
It does no really matter to me, I do it because I like to do this.
I do not really unsderstand why this is a problem.

[JernejL]

The problem is also that newton2 comes with no license for the library itself either, 1.53 came with a license.

[martinsm]

Julio: Only problem is, that it is nowhere written clearly what is license of source code or library. That is why from time to time somebody asks this question here in forum.

I suggest putting simple file license.txt (or copyright.txt) in all download archives, that clearly states that all join/math/demo source code is under public domain (if I understood correctly). And something similar for library (also under public domain?)

[Julio Jerez]

I suggest putting simple file license.txt (or copyright.txt) in all download archives, that clearly states that all join/math/demo source code is under public domain (if I understood correctly). And something similar for library (also under public domain?)

Ha I will do that then

[hpesoj]

Your source code is definitely not currently in the public domain as it contains copyright notices, when being in the public domain means "without copyright".

And unfortunately, it appears it is not that easy for work to simply be put in the public domain. Read this article for clarification: Why the Public Domain Isn't a License.

According to the article, there are two problems with placing software "in the public domain":

1) The copyright holder can be held liable for any damage caused by the software.
2) The copyright holder can re-enforce their copyright at any time, making it illegal for anyone to continue using the software.

Thus, someone making a significant investment in developing software that needs a physics engine may decide against using Newton on the grounds that Julio can theoretically stop them from using Newton (at least the open source bits) at any point.

Here is a quote from the gnu website indicating that software that is simply declared "public domain" is not actually so:

Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, anything written down is automatically copyrighted. This includes programs. Therefore, if you want a program you have written to be in the public domain, you must take some legal steps to disclaim the copyright on it; otherwise, the program is copyrighted.

Using a license solves both of these problems, and since you've said that the main Newton license doesn't cover the open source libraries, I would recommend using some kind of permissive license. The zlib license does place some restrictions of the user, but they seem sensible, and if you're not fussed then there's no problem.

Code: Select all

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:

   1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
   claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
   in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
   appreciated but is not required.

   2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
   misrepresented as being the original software.

   3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
   distribution.

As I will be redistributing your source code, I will make sure whatever license you choose is at the top of each file I use, but I suppose it's up to you where you put the license in your distributions.

Please understand that I'm not being awkward Julio, I just think using a software license is the most sensible thing in this day and age.

[Julio Jerez]

so yo want this text at the top of each file

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:

1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required.

2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software.

3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
distribution.

for what I can the text on that header ithwork of a self servingindividalth want totake credict for something for life.
and you think this is better than restriction at all?
quite frankly I think this is more restritive than what we have now wich is nothing.

I am telling you, you can alter the the code, yo can say you wrote it, you can do what ever you want with it,
how can this be

[Julio Jerez]

I will add this with a macro

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely

[hpesoj]

I'm sure that's fine. I was initially going to suggest taking out the restrictions, but then I figured just give you the original license and let you work with it.

I am telling you, you can alter the the code, yo can say you wrote it, you can do what ever you want with it,
how can this be

I know you're telling me this and I am fine with it, but the thing is that many people will not touch any software that does not have a license. At the moment the code is not public domain, you hold the copyright to the code (this is even explicitely stated in the source code headers), and by law you can stop anyone from using it, any time you please.

By including a license, companies and individuals with commercial aspirations can use Newton (I assume you want to make Newton accesible to as many people as possible) safe in the knowledge that you cannot force them to stop selling their product on the grounds that it contains copyrighted content that legally belongs to you.

Again, I am not suggesting you would ever do such a thing, I am just making a suggestion that I think would benefit Newton in the long run. I'm trying to help, not be pedantic . I hope you understand.

[Dave Gravel]

and by law you can stop anyone from using it, any time you please

I'm not sure about it, if i'm not wrong he can only stop people to use it by making newer license and only on newer version.
Old version license before can't change by the law it is already in public and you can't remove this and can't request people to don't use this.
Here in Canada i'm pretty sure to win at the justice court, and i'm sure to can continue to use it or they need to give me money for halt.
Similar situation have already happen in justice court, and they have finally abandoned and have continue to grow with newer version and newer license.
The exemple that I give upper is not about programmation but it's about invention tech system.
Anyway now in computing the evolution is very fast and you can't use this old version for 10 years hehe, you have max 3 to 5 years for use it.
After for sure you need to upgrade your solution or you don't have any chance to follow the evolution.
In the today technologie it's very important to follow the evolution from the most close possible if you like to have chance to make money.

[Julio Jerez]

well I added the licence test to each header and cpp file, now they look like this

Code: Select all

/* Copyright (c) <2009> <Newton Game Dynamics>
*
* This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
* warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
* arising from the use of this software.
*
* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
* including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
* freely
*/

#ifndef __NEWTON_DEMOS__
#define __NEWTON_DEMOS__
#include "dList.h"
#include "OGLModel.h"


class SceneManager: public dList <OGLModel*>
{
   public:
   typedef void (*Create) (SceneManager& me);
   typedef void (*KeyboardControl) (SceneManager& me);
   typedef void (*AutoSleep) (SceneManager& me, int mode);
   typedef void (*SetShowInslandMode) (SceneManager& me, int mode);
   typedef void (*SetShowContacts) (SceneManager& me, int mode);
   typedef void (*SetShowMeshCollision) (SceneManager& me, int mode);
...

I hope this give piece of mind to some users

[hpesoj]

Thanks Julio.

I'm not sure about it, if i'm not wrong he can only stop people to use it by making newer license and only on newer version.
Old version license before can't change by the law it is already in public and you can't remove this and can't request people to don't use this.

Sure, that is certainly the case with the core Newton library and header, for which the license is clearly stated. My concern was with the open sourced libraries which now form an integral part of Newton. Julio had previously stated that these files are not covered by the main Newton license, and are free for anyone to do with whatever they wanted. However, as far as I can tell, just saying that work is in the public domain does not make it so (read my posts above), and I was worried that potential users of Newton would be deterred for lack of a clear license.

I am not a lawyer and I may be completely wrong, but whatever the case, there is no longer a problem.