Licensing doubts

[fpesari]

I cannot figure the licensing for these files:

dev/new/dshift.c
dev/externals/portsf/ieee80.h
dev/externals/portsf/ieee80.c
dev/externals/paprogs/pvplay/pvfileio.h
dev/externals/paprogs/pvplay/pvdefs.h
dev/externals/paprogs/pvplay/pvfileio.c

They do not have the LGPL header nor any licensing info and they seem to have different authors from the rest of CDP7, so they possibly are copyrighted/proprietary files unless their developers signed a CLA.

This creates a problem for distributing CDP in some distro repositories, such as openSUSE and Debian.

[Sciss]

ieee80 seems public domain code: https://github.com/dpwe/dpwelib - origin should probably be documented

[jpffitch]

think that code i from MIT media lab in theearly 1990s I have aversion that says /***************************************************************\ * ieee80.c * * Convert between "double" and IEEE 80 bit format * * in machine independent manner. * * Assumes array of char is a continuous region of 8 bit frames* * Assumes (unsigned long) has 32 useable bits * * billg, dpwe @media.mit.edu * * 01aug91 * * 19aug91 aldel/dpwe workaround top bit problem in Ultrix * * cc's double->ulong cast * * 05feb92 dpwe/billg workaround top bit problem in * * THINKC4 + 68881 casting * \***************************************************************/ I hd i with coe that had an MIT licence. Nt sure if that helps

…

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Fabio Pesari wrote: I cannot figure the licensing for these files: dev/externals/portsf/ieee80.c dev/externals/portsf/ieee80.h They do not have the LGPL header nor any licensing info and they seem to have different authors from the rest of CDP7, so they possibly are copyrighted/proprietary files. This creates a problem for distributing CDP in some distro repositories, such as openSUSE and Debian. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, orunsubscribe.[ABBM2QVHCEYWOZOHDPNWUOTRMLYC7A5CNFSM4MG4PC32YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DF UVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4I5ROKCQ.gif]

[Sciss]

paprogs seems to have common ancestry with csound (LGPL) code: https://github.com/csound/csound/blob/develop/include/pvfileio.h

[fpesari]

ieee80 seems public domain code: https://github.com/dpwe/dpwelib - origin should probably be documented

Yes, that would make life easier for packagers! Even a license header on both files with the original license notice would be fine 😸

paprogs seems to have common ancestry with csound (LGPL) code: https://github.com/csound/csound/blob/develop/include/pvfileio.h

Nice catch, and I think the author of both is Richard Dobson, since pvfileio.h has the RWD initials in it. It'd be nice if we could get him to clear them.

So that would only leave dev/new/dshift.c without proper copyright info. Perhaps we should contact Professor Rajmil Fischman at Keele University, the author of this file, to ask him if he can explicitly license it under the LGPL 2.1 with the "or any later version" clause.

[Sciss]

dshift is an originary CDP algorithm I think: http://www.ensemble-software.net/CDPDocs/html/cgromody.htm#DSHIFT (but I'm not a CDP author, so someone from the project can probably clarify this contribution)

[musger]

This issue might be resolved by 8d0f9d1 and can possibly be closed?

[fpesari]

This issue might be resolved by 8d0f9d1 and can possibly be closed?

But I don't understand, the comment says the author is Rajmil Fischman and the license notice says it is @richarddobson...perhaps he can weigh in :)

[jpffitch]

I cannot see anything wrong or odd about the dshift source file, and in particular no reference to dobson. Can you explain?

[fpesari]

I cannot see anything wrong or odd about the dshift source file, and in particular no reference to dobson. Can you explain?

Before commit 8d0f9d1 , dshift had no licensing info and a copyright attribution to prof. Rajmil Fischman at Keele University (it's still there).

Unless prof. Fischman signed a Contributor Licensing Agreement which gives copyright to prof. Dobson (in that case, the current licensing notice would be correct), that file cannot be under the LGPL.

I think CDP can be built without dshift so this is not really a problem for my purpose (shipping an openSUSE package, which requires an OSI-compliant license for all files), but I think it'd be great for CDP7's inclusion in many distro repositories if these doubts were completely cleared.

[jpffitch]

I still d not follow. I am invoved with another audio sofware system and we have copyright notices from tens of different authors and a very similar licence statement for LPGL; no one has queried this and it is packaged by Debian. After that commit I cannot see the difference.

…

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020, Fabio Pesari wrote: I cannot see anything wrong or odd about the dshift source file, and in particular no reference to dobson. Can you explain? Before commit 8d0f9d1 , dshift had no licensing info and a copyright attribution to prof. Rajmil Fischman at Keele University (it's still there). Unless prof. Fischman signed a Contributor Licensing Agreement which gives copyright to prof. Dobson (in that case, the current licensing notice would be correct), that file cannot be under the LGPL. I think CDP can be built without dshift so this is not really a problem for my purpose (shipping an openSUSE package, which requires an OSI-compliant license for all files), but I think it'd be great for CDP7's inclusion in many distro repositories if these doubts were completely cleared. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, orunsubscribe.[ABBM2QQLTYX7VE6EYFH5YMDRNF7XBA5CNFSM4MG4PC32YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DF VREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOES2PORA.gif]

[fpesari]

I still d not follow. I am invoved with another audio sofware system and we have copyright notices from tens of different authors and a very similar licence statement for LPGL; no one has queried this and it is packaged by Debian. After that commit I cannot see the difference.

The problem is not the LGPL, it's the fact that CDP was originally released under a proprietary license. In order to relicense to LGPL, AFAIK (Source 1, Source 2) permission is needed from all authors except if they signed a CLA (a clause that says for example, "all code belongs to the Composers Desktop Project").

[jpffitch]

Two things. One Rajmil has agreed to the licence change Two my other audio software changed from a restrictive licence to LGPL and I collected agreements but the copyright remains with the author. ⁣Sent from TypeApp ​

…

On Apr 18, 2020, 17:53, at 17:53, Fabio Pesari ***@***.***> wrote: > I still d not follow. I am invoved with another audio sofware system and we have copyright notices from tens of different authors and a very similar licence statement for LPGL; no one has queried this and it is packaged by Debian. After that commit I cannot see the difference. The problem is not the LGPL, it's the fact that CDP was originally released under a proprietary license. In order to relicense to LGPL, AFAIK ([Source 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_relicensing#Motivation_and_description), [Source 2](https://www-archive.mozilla.org/mpl/relicensing-faq#no-license-notice)) permission is needed from all authors except if they signed a CLA (a clause that says for example, "all code belongs to the Composers Desktop Project"). -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #15 (comment)

[fpesari]

Two things. One Rajmil has agreed to the licence change

Well, if that's the case then case closed! But we outsiders to the CDP project had no way of knowing :)