Is there a particular reason why the author doesn't wish to release the source that uses the KHTML (well, S60 WebKit) library?

I have trouble understanding people who use/extend (L)GPL'd software and then don't release the source to their parts.

No problem, it's easy to understand, the rest of it is bsd, and as such you don't have to release them... LGPL here doesn't spread like a virus, it's contained, but nothing avoiding you from picking that source up and do the OS4/3/Aros port though...

People are always so generous with others people work...

Last edited by pixie on 15-Aug-2006 at 10:55 AM.
Last edited by pixie on 15-Aug-2006 at 10:54 AM.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@pixie

Quote:

No problem, it's easy to understand, the rest of it is bsd, and as such you don't have to release them... LGPL here doesn't spread like a virus, it's contained, but nothing avoiding you from picking that source up and do the OS4/3/Aros port though...

I suppose I am a crusty GPL advocate. I like to see opensource additions to opensource software

I should grow a beard, really.

Marcik perhaps simply didn't want to see his work reused in some commercial software.... I suppose it's not really necessary to give a name....

@nine (I guess that you know, but as much to point out to others)

if he uses any GPL or LGPL code in for example his library will he have to release all the sources of the library...

The same thing goes for his browser...

But if any GPL code has not been used in his library, then his browser (all the source code) also needs to be under the GPL license.

And if his library is not a shared library and uses GPL or LGPL code, will he also needs to release his browser sources under the GPL license

_________________
Best regards,
hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]

Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.

@hnl_dk:
There's no if or half ifs, the code was already LGPL+BSD long before Marcik came around, Nokia themselves had that license. The part which might remain closed is the part that can be close, namely BSD not the KHTML one.

Please everyone, you have an alerady open port, pick it up and do it open also for OS4, don't ask others to expend their time to do it for you

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@pixie

I think you need to review the GPL and the LGPL license. If any of the code used in his "library" is GPL or LGPL does he have to release all the sources of that library. No matter of any code in it is also under a BSD license. That is life if you use GPL/LGPL code.

_________________
Best regards,
hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]

Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.

@pixie

Quote:

Please everyone, you have an alerady open port, pick it up and do it open also for OS4, don't ask others to expend their time to do it for you

My comment is not specific to an possible OS4 port... As told above this is the simple problem when using any GPL/LGPL code in projects.

Plus OS4 users was also asked to donate money to him and some have done...

_________________
Best regards,
hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]

Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.

@hnl_dk

There's no GPL code at all involved in this project... only LGPL, BSD type and proprietary one.

And it was since the beginning written that the bounty rules were the following :
marcik have to give MorphOS binary for free and give source code to Morphzone OR MOSTeam OR open it totally. (and of course publish some parts of the source code if required by some original licence sources) If he wants to do more, he can, if he doesn't want, he can, too... and he will do more as he said he will continue to give source of upcoming versions to Morphzone in case he'll one day drop the project.

And IIRC it was some OS4 people who said to add money to the bounty, not MOS ones...


@pixie
You're totally right about the licensing..

but care to explain : Please everyone, you have an alerady open port, pick it up and do it open also for OS4, don't ask others to expend their time to do it for you.

BTW Marcik now act the same way Stefan Burstrom acts some years ago... in a protectionist way to not let "the other camp" get important software... (MOS Team proposed SB to port IBrowse to PPC quickly in exchange of a native MOS version, SB refused, now IBrowse PPC is still not out and there's few chance for OS4 users to get a browser based on marcik work in the near future)

As usual little people pay for the mistakes/choices important people do, sometimes it's an advantage, sometimes it's a failure.

Edit : typo + @pixie

Last edited by falcon1 on 15-Aug-2006 at 12:22 PM.
Last edited by falcon1 on 15-Aug-2006 at 12:15 PM.

@falcon1

all the code of the library has to be released (if anyone askes for it)... I guess you need to read the LGPL license...

example 2c of the LGPL license
Quote:

c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

("the whole of the work" is the library)

_________________
Best regards,
hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]

Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.

the code of the khtml core will be released... (as you said, it's required by the licence) but who said it will be in a library ?????

Last edited by falcon1 on 15-Aug-2006 at 12:24 PM.

@falcon1
Quote:

the code of the khtml core will be released... but who said it will be in a library ?????

The LGPL license itself... if it is not is the license broken

_________________
Best regards,
hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]

Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.

LGPL is RECOMMENDED for libraries, but you can use this licence for any type of software... aswell ou can use other licence for libraries...

BTW the L in L-GPL means Lesser, not Library...

and concerning the core, Marcik said he did only some minor modification to the original source code... in fact everyone can NOW see this part of code.... on Nokia website

Last edited by falcon1 on 15-Aug-2006 at 12:31 PM.

@falcon1

read 1 and 2 of the license: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

2a answers this question

edit: a instead of c (c was the first answer)

Last edited by hnl_dk on 15-Aug-2006 at 12:40 PM.

_________________
Best regards,
hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]

Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.

In fact we're talking about the same thing with different words

KHTML core is a library, but it will stay as it is and won't become an Amigalike shared library. I thought you were talking about this sort of libraries. sorry for the confusion, this source code will as I already said be published, but it will remains mostly untouched. and you can get the cource on nokia website.

BTW in the preamble of LGPL it is clearly stated that it is designed for library use, but can also be used for any type of program. But as it was written for this usage the rest of the licence talks about libraries.

@falcon1

if the ported KHTML core will need to be a shared library, if not will anything that does use it fall under the GPL/LGPL licenses.

_________________
Best regards,
hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]

Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.

Quote:

I think you need to review the GPL and the LGPL license. If any of the code used in his "library" is GPL or LGPL does he have to release all the sources of that library. No matter of any code in it is also under a BSD license. That is life if you use GPL/LGPL code.

\me runs away telling Nokia to exchange their license...
as if...

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

Quote:

if the ported KHTML core will need to be a shared library, if not will anything that does use it fall under the GPL/LGPL licenses.

probably even MUI itself...

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@pixie

Quote:

\me runs away telling Nokia to exchange their license...

Erm... not possible.

If you look at the history of the source, where it comes from:

KDE Konqueror project -> Apple Safari Project -> Nokia WebKit

Thus, the license path goes:

LGPL -> LGPL+BSD licensed extensions -> LGPL+BSD licensed extensions.

Nokia can't change license on the LGPL code - it's just not legal. And the type of BSD license denotes whether it can be relicensed - often you can relicense it only if you modify it.

Besides, Nokia won't relicense it - they are opensource supporters.

I don't get what is so horrific about the (L)GPL that would force anyone to want license away from it.

Last edited by nine on 15-Aug-2006 at 01:34 PM.
Last edited by nine on 15-Aug-2006 at 01:33 PM.

@falcon1 you wrote:

Quote:

And IIRC it was some OS4 people who said to add money to the bounty, not MOS ones...

Are you sure about that?

Is NEKO or AMiGR not MOS ones, but OS4 people? That is news to me...

By the way I would have donated, if the bounty was for OS4.