Slashdot Mirror
Pixar Demos Newly Open-Sourced OpenSubdiv Graphics Tech
An anonymous reader writes "Last week at SIGGRAPH, Pixar Animation Studios announced OpenSubdiv, an open source implementation of the Renderman subdivision surface technology, thus releasing the patents to the long standing Pixar 'secret sauce.' In addition to the offline subdivision scheme, it also includes a GPU implementation. This video demonstrates a realtime deforming subdivision surface running at 50 FPS in Maya (though it is freely available to use anywhere). The source code is available on Pixar's GitHub account."
Says the project's site: "OpenSubdiv is covered by the Microsoft Public License, and is free to use for commercial or non-commercial use. This is the same code that Pixar uses internally for animated film production."
Can anyone explain what the consequences of it being released under Microsoft Public License are? Is it toxic to OSS ecosystem, or is it just GPL incompatible (and presumably part of the "extend" part of MS's attack on FOSS)?
Apparently they open sourced it over Steve Job's dead body.
It's a pretty reasonable open source license, actually. It is basically a BSD license, plus a patent grant, plus a mutually assured destruction clause regarding patent suits. I'm most impressed by the fact that it is about three fewer pages than the average open source license seems to be these days. A normal person might actually be able to comprehend it. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
...And this type of reaction is why more companies aren't exactly tripping over themselves to open their code.
It's free for non-commercial AND commercial use. What the fuck else do you want? Are you really that offended that their open-source rendering library has the word "Microsoft" even tangentially related to it? Do you really think they would publish it under GPLv3, which could potentially force them to open their entire codebase?
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
According to wikipedia:
This is the least restrictive of the Microsoft licenses and allows for distribution of compiled code for either commercial or non-commercial purposes under any license that complies with the Ms-PL. Redistribution of the source code itself is permitted only under the Ms-PL.[12] Initially titled Microsoft Permissive License, it was renamed to Microsoft Public License while being reviewed for approval by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). The license was approved on October 12, 2007 along with the Ms-RL.[11] According to the Free Software Foundation, it is a free software license but not compatible with the GNU GPL.[6]
Yes, opensource. http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl/ See?
Oh, and at a glance, I don't see anything that would be incompatible with GPL v3, which from Microsoft is pretty remarkable.... On the flip side, it is incompatible with GPL v2. This makes it absolutely bizarre and backwards as corporate open source licenses go....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
It looks toxic. An intentionally toxic license by Microsoft with patent ties, or in other words, a patent grant that ties it to the Microsoft license thus being incompatible with all the open source licenses people actually want to use. And the patents are all bogus no doubt, they are the "my lawyer budget is bigger than yours" kind of intellectual property. Prove me wrong please, I would love that, but I am not optimistic.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
"an open source implementation of the Renderman subdivision surface technology, thus releasing the patents to the long standing Pixar 'secret sauce."
The Renderman Interface spec already contains how the subdivision surfaces are supposed to be described and computed, so we know how to do that. There are already other implementations. Moreover, publishing the source code does not "release patents" in any meaningful sense, not to mention the fact that patents are, by definition, public.
Ezekiel 23:20
With the libraries open, it should be interesting to see what comes of it. It lowers the barriers to entry in the rendering package world... And no one can say it is not commercial grade code. :)
Wikipedia is wrong. From opensourcelegal.org, it is compatible with the GPL, but only with GPLv3. GPLv2 is incompatible with patent retaliation clauses. GPLv3 is not.
Incidentally, GPLv2 without an "and later" clause is also incompatible with GPLv3 for the same reason.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Per wikipedia, GNU considers MSPL a free license, but incompatible with GPL.
It said that the binaries could be distributed under other licenses, but the source must only be distributed under the MSPL.
Haven't read MSPL conditions yet, to see if this is scary or not. Per that same wikipedia page, MS has a ton of licenses of various freedom/restriction, and this one is the "most free".
Seems an odd choice of "open source" license-- promotes freedom of binary distribution, and restricts freedom of source distribution.
Is any existing free software 3d stuff Apache or BSD licensed? Because, I don't think this is possible to roll into any GPL licensed applications.
Care to explain why? Other than the one liner on the GNU page saying that it's incompatible with the GPL.
It may help if you know that it predates GPLv3, and so was incompatible with the GPL at the time it was created by Microsoft.
Uh-oh. Source code is licensed under the Ms-PL. Ignorant anti-Microsoft flame-war igniting in 3... 2... 1... Duck and cover!
First of all, publishing anything under the GPL can never force the author to open anything. It might prevent them from using modifications of it that are not their own (but no license can guarantee that either). Honestly, your massive misunderstanding of licensing requirements makes all of your "analysis" of the situation suspect.
they are articulating it in real time! having graphics like this in videogames would be really amazing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPLv3#Libraries
Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers to license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving it more tools than the proprietary world.
Following this assertion by RMS and the FSF, Pixar's release of their surface rendering library under the GPL would be an immediate violation as their own proprietary rendering systems obviously utilize this library. Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, or B) GPL their own in-house software that links to it to avoid being in violation of the GPL.
No sir, YOUR massive misunderstanding of licensing requirements makes your "accusations" of me suspect.
Seems an odd choice of "open source" license-- promotes freedom of binary distribution, and restricts freedom of source distribution.
Why? They also sell a commercial package with these libraries. They kinda need to distribute binaries...
If you're going to accuse me of something, just say it. Don't be that karma-shielded AC who throws accusations around like playthings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPLv3#Libraries
Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers to license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving it more tools than the proprietary world.
Following this assertion by RMS and the FSF, Pixar's release of their surface rendering library under the GPL would be an immediate violation as their own proprietary rendering systems obviously utilize this library. Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, or B) GPL their own in-house software that links to it to avoid being in violation of the GPL.
No sir, YOUR massive misunderstanding of licensing requirements makes your "accusations" of me suspect.
Huh? They own the copyright. A copyright holder can never impose limitations on themselves that they don't wish to adhere to. If you read the license on installation, Microsoft gives no one the right to redistribute Windows. Do you think that includes themselves as well somehow?
Either you are willfully ignorant or stupid.
My faith in humanity is restored. No, wait....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Sir, that is wrong. Since that would be a license they are releasing it for OTHERS. They, on the other hand, are the holders of the IP, therefore entitled to use it as they want under any conditions they wish. They also keep the right to re-release it under any other license they want, and hell, even grant others a license that allows any other set of liberties. Therefore, no, they could perfectly release it as GPL and still use it themselves.
Our intent is to encourage high performance accurate subdiv drawing by giving away the "good stuff".
I want to be wrong about this. I really do. But I read this as "our intent is to establish a tie to our proprietary products Renderman and Maya via a license carefully designed by Microsoft to be incompatible with GPL, and thus Blender."
Well, this would be as good a time as any to point out that Maya is not the only game in town. There is Blender of course. And there is my as-yet-unannounced project based on a half edge meshing technology that is way superior to the creaky old infrastructure Maya relies on. There are already some great results in terms of high complexity meshes and excellent real time performance. So far it has been just me pushing on the code, but that should change pretty soon. Go here to find out about World Welder. Check out some demo images here, here and here. Those are all high triangle count, high complexity meshes rendering at smooth interactive frame rates on low end hardware. There are various algorithms in use. The 3D Freetype Unicode fonts are done with Root3 subdivision, arguably superior to Catmull Clark favored by the Maya crowd. Still lots of work to do to implement boundaries, creases, deformable heirarchy and the like, but the base it's built on is solid as a rock. And really compact as well, yes sometimes you can have it all. Anyway, I will be making a more official project announcement in due course but for now, a tarball is online here. I apologize in advance for the documentation quality, but not for the code quality. Please be kind to my server and don't browse all the images, it's just a cable modem with pathetic upload bandwidth. (By the way, sponsorship in the form of web hosting would be much appreciated.)
There remains much work to do, sigh, there always is. But this is already the skeleton of a nice 3D meshing workbench, and it is time to put some meat on the bones. Language is C++11, scripting is Lua, GUIs are GLX and QT, revision control is Mercurial, license is GPLv3. Anybody who wants to join the mailing list is more than welcome, developers and future users alike.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
This is not how copyright works. There is no rule that says that a creator cannot offer their product under many different license terms, nor requiring them to conform to the license terms they require of others. It remains their product to do with as they will until they transfer ownership of the copyright.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Actually, he's at least partly correct.
The rights holder can release this under the GPL; they just can't use any modifications made to the GPL'd version. Just because they release some code under a license doesn't mean that they, the authors, can't ALSO release it under a more restrictive license for personal use. The GPL gives the author COMPLETE freedom, including the freedom to license their code under other licenses that conflict with it.
Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, B) GPL theor own in-house software that links to it, or C) keep using it just like they do and not use any changes to the GPL'd version unless the submitter also agreed to contribute the changes to the proprietary version.
Of course, C is often such a headache to manage in reality that most people just use an alternate license that's either GPLv2 or GPLv3 (like this one) compatible.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Windows isn't released under the Ms-PL. Try telling Microsoft to give you the source and see what they say.
So you're right about the copyright holder not being limited. A small victory for you on a small oversight by me. And what about the other animation studios who use proprietary products like Maya? Releasing OpenSubdiv under the GPL would fuck them over, because now they're barred from using it just because RMS can't sleep at night knowing that free software might be working hand-in-hand with proprietary code. OH NOEZ!!! Guess they better start training all their staff on Blender.
And wow, a little early for the ad hominems to start flying, isn't it? You really must not have much ground to stand on.
Of course, GPLv2 was also incompatible with the BSD license and GPLv3.
It's a pretty reasonable open source license, actually. It is basically a BSD license, plus a patent grant, plus a mutually assured destruction clause regarding patent suits....
Let's put that claim to rest right now. It's the opposite of reasonable. Instead the Ms-PL is intentionally designed to divide the open source community. See this informed discussion.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Ludwig Plutonium, is that you?
at a glance, I don't see anything that would be incompatible with GPL v3
You didn't look closely enough.
which from Microsoft is pretty remarkable....
Smells like business as usual to me.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Oh, and let add this: if Pixar is actually genuine they will additionally dual license this code base under LGPL (v3), and I will be impressed. If not... well, each person can interpret that for themselves.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
It's free for non-commercial AND commercial use. What the fuck else do you want?
In a nutshell, lose the Ms-PL in order to appear genuine and gain the trust of the community. We have seen enough faux-open code bases, thankyou. Let's see proof that this is actually open and not a strategem, in which case Pixar would get the love they deserve.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
It's a pretty reasonable open source license, actually.
It may be, but it can't be used by Blender for example because it is based on GPL v2 (like a lot of OSS software)
But the good news is that the project leader of Blender, Ton Roosendael, has met with Pixar director Bill Polson and he promised that they would work out the licensing issues.
Sorry, but that discussion is just about as uninformed as they get. License compatibility does not mean that you can strip off one person's license and copyright and substitute your own. Compatibility means that you can combine the two in a single piece of software. The way you do this is by including one piece of code, complete with license and copyright notice, and call functions in that piece of code from another piece of software with different licensing terms. In no case is code licensed under a different set of terms, except insofar as effectively the product as a whole is governed by the union of the restrictions.
What makes a license incompatible are clauses in one license that do not allow you to impose additional restrictions, coupled with terms in the other license that impose additional restrictions above and beyond what are allowed by the first license. Such a situation does not exist here, so the licenses are compaible.
If your definition of "compatible" requires being able to substitute the GPL's terms, then there's no such thing as a GPL-compatible license other than either a dual-licensed work, a work licensed under the same version of the GPL, or a work in the public domain (and because not all countries recognize the right of an author to place a work in the public domain, there's no such thing as a GPL-compatible license at all by that definition other than a dual-licensed work). Your definition is thus completely unreasonable and nonstandard.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Cool. Yeah, GPLv2 is a touchy subject. For that matter, GPL in general is a touchy subject because of all the "no additional restrictions" stuff. That said, for something like Blender, it might make more sense to define a standard plug-in interface and then dynamically load this as a plug-in. Then, the license doesn't matter at all. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
How would RMS ban anything? That's where you continue to be wrong. There's no reason to demand someone rethink their licensing choice but there's also no truth to the statement that releasing something you own as GPL would limit you, the copyright holder, in any way. It's pure misinformation.
Why not? To my reading the MSPL is considerably freer than the GPL. It's also a quarter of a page long and written in plain language. It also doesn't seem to conflict with the GPL 3.
Boo hoo. All the criticisms apply equally or more to the GPL. The license seems to be about halfway between the BSD license and the LGPL. You COULD make a library out of the MSPL code and link to it from GPLed code. Unless something in the GPL forbids that.
It's pretty hypocritical to criticize a license for requiring that redistribution of the source of that code or derivatives must be under the same license and then turn around and recommend everyone use the GPL instead.
Let me explain the license in simple slashdot terms:
1. The license was penned by Microsoft, therefore it is evil.
2. Pixar is releasing the code. Pixar was financed by Steve Jobs into a multi-billion dollar corporation. Corporations and Steve Jobs are evil, therefore the only logical thing to conclude about Pixar's intentions is that they are evil.
3. The license is not GPL, or some similar Google license, so it is patent encumbered. Patents are evil, so the code is evil.
4. Any open source code should be GPLv3 because RMS says so, therefore the everything about this code dump is designed to embrace, extend, and extinguish s some already existing but half done FOSS alternative. That is evil.
How could this code and its license be any more evil? I've just proved to you that this whole thing is like the spawn of Satan––or Blizzard entertainment, 'cause they can't fix Diablo III.
Discuss below.
Oh please. The GPL does not give the author COMPLETE freedom, copyright law does.
Furthermore, the GPL does not limit what USERS can do, it controls what DISTRIBUTORS must do. So even if your bizarre theory that an author must act under the same terms as he licenses it to others were true (and it most certainly isn't), the GPL wouldn't kick in until they DISTRIBUTED the code. Usage has nothing to do with it.
all the open source licenses people actually want to use
I don't see how it's incompatible with the Apache, MIT and BSD licenses...
I think you're missing D) use whatever changes they like but never distribute their proprietary code to anyone else.
You can use GPL code for anything you like, it's only when you distribute it to someone else that any obligations are imposed on you.
You make a good point, but you're missing a better one. The only way Pixar would ever be required to release *ALL* of their source code, as a result of licensing this module under GPL, is if they were to distribute *ALL* of their binaries, as well. Since they aren't doing this, and they aren't going to do this, they don't have to release source for anything. Now, if GP were in any way correct, they would have to release source for any binaries they distribute that make use of this library, were it released under GPL. But, then, GP couldn't be much further off base, so it's a moot point.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Care to elaborate on what clause invalidates compatibility with GPL v3 then? Or are you just spreading FUD?
Don't worry, I'm sure there's a Service Pack on its way to deal with this legal bug ;).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
There is nothing disingenuous about MS-PL. Anyone who thinks that way probably has not even read the license and is merely freaking out over some twisted hatred of "Microsoft" being in the name. There's nothing in the license that opens you up to some sort of trap. You really shouldn't get butt hurt just because it wasn't released under the GPL. I'm sure you'd get your panties in a twist even if it were BSD.
Here is your proof.
Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
1.Definitions
The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.
A "contribution" is the original software, or any additions or changes to the software.
A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under this license.
"Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read directly on its contribution.
2.Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
3.Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it. The contributors give no express warranties, guarantees, or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors exclude the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Following this assertion by RMS and the FSF, Pixar's release of their surface rendering library under the GPL would be an immediate violation as their own proprietary rendering systems obviously utilize this library. Therefore, if they wished to release it as GPL, they would subsequently be forced to A) Stop using it outright, or B) GPL their own in-house software that links to it to avoid being in violation of the GPL.
No.
GPL restricts only what happens to publically available software. Anybody can take and modify GPL code for in-house products as much as they like, it's only when they distribute it that they have to make sourcecode available. Ofcourse "distribute" was somewhat open to interpretation; GPLv3 attempts to fix this.
It just means they can't use any modifications made by other copyright owners, unless they get permission to do so from those other people. This permission would likely take the form of a GPL-incompatible additional license.
Most importantly; only a copyright owner is able to sue for copyright infringement (which is what GPL violations effectively are) and they're unlikely to sue themselves.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Not surprising, since GPLv3 is the most toxic license.
It's or later, not and later.
It bears mentioning that the most popluar and robust OSS 3D package, Blender, uses GPLv3 and therefore this technology can't be implemented in it, as-is. That's sad because Blender really is a poster child for successful OSS. I'm a little biased because I use it constantly, but it's still unfortunate, because that would be one of the most obvious applications for this.
Why wouldn't it be usable as-is? The license is GPL v3-compatible
This! I manage a thousand+ person software development group at a huge corporation and the only reason we do not release all our software as open source is because we are afraid that someone on slashdot might be a dick about it.
Ms-PL is basically the same thing as the license Google used for VP8- it just combines the patent grant (unless you sue someone for this) clause with the rest of the "do whatever you want" license while Google treats them as two separate licenses.
Can you people stop pissing and moaning and hairsplitting about license terms and allow some discussion of what this tech means for the medium-term future?
A few questions I'd certainly love to get answered from someone who's knowledgeable:
-Is this the REYES algorythm?
-Does it differ in important ways from the Catmull-Clark subdivision that's pretty much standard in off-the-shelf 3D software?
-With the increasing prevalence of raytraced GPU/coprocessor rendering replacing rasterisation in near-realtime applications, is this tech now mostly irrelevant?
-What are some things the release of this technology might make possible?
-Does this have any impact on the patent encumbrance surrounding Renderman's nearly-free motion blur?
-How much longer were those REYES patents going to last anyway?
There are currently 12 comments at +5 and only one talks about the software--the other 11 are about the license. Dropping down to +3 doesn't help any.
Can anyone else here weigh in on the technology itself?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Open Source Legal is wrong, at least according to FSF and the Ms-PL license text,
"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."
I.E. Anyone outside of the MS ecosystem shall not directly use our code. Granted, piping is always an option, even with GPLv3, but this is an anti Free software clause aimed directly keeping "shared source" away from actual open source implementation.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
From TFL, "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."
i.e. totally incompatible with any other major license.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Actually they are opening things up. Even things like the source code for the old CDE desktop are being made available (just for an example from the last week), despite having multiple owners that all had to agree and all who were earlier suspicious of the idea of providing their source code.
Your other stuff is a bit out there since nobody is stupid enough to release a commercial product under a short one page licence they have not read.
Surely the most obvious implementer would be Aqsis, the free Renderman renderer. Blender users then get this technology via Mosaic plugin.
I don't think you understand what compatibility is. See: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042451&cid=40960107
Uh... there's no such thing as a license that doesn't require you to distribute the code under that license, and requiring someone to include a complete copy of the license is also pretty much the norm. By your definition, all non-GPL licenses are incompatible with the GPL. Sorry, but licenses don't work that way. GPL-compatible does not mean that you can simply copy and paste code willy-nilly into a GPL project.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Pixar doesn't care what you think. The do not know or care that you exist.
So, will this give games that look like Toy Story?
(Hey, it's been a while since anyone mentioned that, thought I'd bring it back just for old time's sake....although the demo video kinda looks like the jokes not funny anymore...)
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
And so I pass.
Isn't that Blender's problem, then? Why didn't blender make it MSPL so it could be used?
I've just proved to you that this whole thing is like the spawn of Satan––or Blizzard entertainment, 'cause they can't fix Diablo III.
Discuss below.
So, If OpenSubdiv isn't the spawn of Satan, then it's the spawn of Blizzard's broken Satan Simulator?
GPL-compatible does not mean that you can simply copy and paste code willy-nilly into a GPL project.
Most BSD style licenses are unencumbered enough that you can relicense direct derivatives (not just composite works) under practically any terms you want. Commercial companies do this all the time, and it is in fact what makes BSD style licensing for open source software projects so controversial - anyone can create a proprietary fork at will, with components that quickly lose their BSD character as modifications are added.
GPL licensed derivatives of BSD licensed components can be created in the same manner. It is the copyright of the authors of the modifications that makes the relicensing have teeth, it is the lack of a prohibition on additional license terms in BSD style licenses that makes it possible.
The MS-PL, on the other hand, specifically prohibits this practice, much like the Mozilla Public License (MPL). Both are moderate copyleft licenses, designed to make sure that derivatives of covered source files are always available under the terms of the original license.
Because you touch yourself at night.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You are so full of shit and FUD. A small oversight, yeah right. That was a MAJOR MALFUNCTION on your part, when you come here basing your whole argument on wrong data.
They can lisence their software with millions a licenses at the same time, they own the copyright! They can release the software with GPL to the public and use another lisence for their own work. They can also license it with multiple licenses to the public.
Why don't you take your blind hate towards GPL and RMS, and stick up yours.
You forgot to mention that Pixar was acquired by The Walt Disney Company, the chief beneficiary of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8
They're the copyright owners, they don't need to follow this license.
But you cannot remove the copyright notice, as a rule, if you are distributing it in source code form, nor can you remove the license terms. All BSD licenses contain this clause:
I'm not aware of any software licenses that do not contain similar provisions except for the WTFPL.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I agree, you certainly cannot remove the copyright notice, nor can you remove the license. However, you can indicate that a given file contains "portions" copyright so and so that are subject to a BSD license, and portions copyright someone else that are subject to a more restrictive license.
That has the effect of subjecting the whole file (assuming substantial modifications have been made) to the restrictions contained in both licenses, because the copyrights of both the original copyright holder and later contributors are applicable. In the case of code that was originally BSD licensed that has substantial contributions released under a more restrictive license, the file is (for most practical purposes) governed by the the conditions of the the more restrictive license, because the requirements of the BSD licensed portions are trivial to satisfy.
No care need be taken to avoid mixing the code subject to the different licenses within the file either, as long as the copyright notice and conditions that apply to portions derived from the original distribution are included. The whole point of a derived work is that the copyrights (and hence the conditions) of both contributors apply. If a function or code fragment subject to the terms of both licenses is not a legal nullity, no problem.
That's like saying that justice is "toxic" to murderers. Well I suppose you're right. That doesn't make justice wrong though.
GPLv3 is the most community-friendly license, since it prevents the fruits of community labor from being closed off into proprietary products, and it provides some small measure of retaliation against those who try to do that. It's an interesting first attempt at justice by FOSS license.
I guess it's "toxic" to community-unfriendly people, but just like court justice, that's a good thing. Those who want to take from the community but not give back don't like GPLv3, for sure. There's plenty of those people, so it's good to have a license containing some modern defenses.
This this this! Finally - someone points out the elephant, the pot calling the kettle black. For once I'd like the GPL community to admit this. The tactics and business models supported by GPL-style licenses is why I never have, and never will, release my software with one of their licenses. It's either free - or it's not.
Either give it away free like you intended, or follow the GPL rabbit hole down and just guess what GPL 4, 5 and 6 will look like...
Corporations... are evil
Not fully Slashdot compliant.This doesn't include Google though. They said they'd still respect me in the morning.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Beware of geeks bearing gifs.
No, it doesn't effectively change the license on the existing code. The portions that were under a BSD license remain so licensed, at least to the extent that the person who receives it can still figure out what parts were originally covered by the BSD license. The clause in the MS-PL requiring that distribution of that code in source code form must be under the MS-PL and that a copy of the license must be included is not really different from the clause in the BSD license requiring that the BSD license terms be included, at least in practice.
Pedantically, yes, there's a very slight difference. In practice, assuming people follow good code hygiene (keeping source code from different sources in separate files is a good practice anyway, because doing so makes it easier to keep things in sync with the original), there's no difference. Content in source code form (in separate files) inherently does not impose any restrictions on other files in the project unless you distribute the content in binary form, and the MS-PL does not, to the best of my understanding, impose any additional restrictions on the GPLed binary code above what GPLv3 allows. So to the extent that this is different from BSD at all, the differences solely affect code maintainers, and in a way that is generally considered to be positive. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
No, it doesn't effectively change the license on the existing code
I didn't say it changed the license on anything. I said it has the effect (the practical effect) of subjecting the whole file to the more restrictive license. The reason why this is the case is (as you note) it can quickly become impossible to determine which lines are subject to which license.
Of course it doesn't subject the original code to the more restrictive license, you just don't know what is the original code. If you want to create something based on the original code with modifications under a different license, you should start with a clean copy. The further encumbered version is almost useless for that.
I agree, however, that there is no point in encumbering a BSD licensed source file with another license if all you are going to do is make minor changes. If you are going to make major changes, on the other hand, you may have a very good reason to do just that.
Did you mean to respond to the GP?
I was responding to the GP's argument about distribution -- and saying that they just can't use any modifications made to distributed GPL'd code in their proprietarily distributed version, but otherwise can do whatever they want. Which appears to be exactly what you responded with, but with more CAPS and fewer examples.
I meant to respond to you. You made the statement "The GPL gives the author COMPLETE freedom" (caps yours). This is factually incorrect. Neither the GPL nor any other copyright license gives the author anything. They also don't take anything away from the author. Copyright law, not some license, gives all rights in a work to the author.
The rest of your post talks solely about 'use'. You never once mention the word 'distribute'. GPL does not apply to use, it applies to distribution. So, even if the did release it under the GPL, their use would not be affected at all. And they certainly would not be required to GPL any of their in-house stuff.
The only thing GPL requires is that IF you distribute binaries, you must distribute the matching source.
PIXAR was founded and financed by Steven P. Jobs; and co-founded by Catmull and others.