PanoTools:
Re: Re: copyright violation?
Roger Howard 2004-Sep-09 23:02:50
I *think*
On Sep 9, 2004, at 12:44 PM, Erik Krause wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2004 at 9:45, Roger Howard wrote:
>
>> Your products are clearly derivative works under the
>> definition of GPL - no offense intended by any means - and there's
>> little way around that.
>
> Do you really mean? These products pass data to panotools, nothing
> more. In my opinion (but I'm no specialist here and certainly not a
> lawyer) 'derived work' means work that is based on the knowhow of a
> procuct and that extends that work.
I'm no lawyer either, so none of this means squat really except what
*I* think. From all that I've read, derivation seems to be about
whether a product is functional without the other work... in other
words, could your product function in large part without PanoTools
library?
This seems also to be how the LGPL approachs the issue of a non-GPL or
non-LGPL product linking to a LGPL library... for instance, if the LGPL
library enables new functionality, protocols, etc, but is not critical
to the functionality of the proprietary product, then the linking seems
kosher. If the product is worthless without the *GPL component, then
it's derived.
-R
> AFAIK the linux kernel is under the GPL. If it would not be possible
> to use functions of a GPL product it wouldn't be allowed to sell
> commercial programs for Linux.
It's not that its not possible, it is, under specific conditions.
> Taken from http://www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/asay-paper.pdf
> ("Linux, the General Public License, and a New Model for Software
> Innovation"):
>
> "US copyright law also holds that a work will only be considered an
> infringing derivative work if it is substantially similar to the
> copyrighted work, and if the copyright holder did not authorize the
> derivative."
I would tend to consider a GUI front-end for a library substantially
similar - again, I'm trying really hard not to offend you by
denegrating your work because I respect it and have great admiration
for all of your contributions - whether the products end up GPL'ed or
not I will still financially support the developers of the products I
use. But in the end, similarity is not about surface level details (at
least not how I think of it), but the purpose it was created for and
the code it uses. It's my understanding that the vast majority of
processing in these tools is in fact performed by PanoTools, with these
products serving as (excellent) front ends for preparing processing
jobs that are ultimately handled by PT. That seems clearly a derivative
to me.
>
> Neither PTLens, PTAssembler nor PTGui or PTMac are similar to
> panotools.
I don't agree - they are putting a very pretty face on what PanoTools
was designed for from the start (and which is was very awkward to use
for a great many people)... the similarity is in what the products do,
not what they look like.
> In fact they won't work without panotools...
Exactly what I think qualifies them as derivatives...
> It's another thing for Kevins Mac OSX panotools plugins. This seems
> to me true derivative work. But where they released und the GPL?
No doubt, these are clearly derivatives in every sense, and no I don't
believe they were ever released in source form though the GPL clearly
requires that. No offense Kevin - I support you as you know, and have
never raised this issue but I don't believe there's a defense against
this being a GPL violation at all here. Not that I plan to sue or
anything.
Cheers guys... I know this is a touchy subject, you have all done a
great deal of great work.
Question - aside from Helmut, how many contributors are there to the
PanoTools libraries?
Your main/best option may simply be to maintain a non-GPL version of
the library... and if the group of PT contributors is small enough, you
could easily keep this non-GPL version up to date (as long as each
contributor agrees to relicense their contributions) with the GPL
version. The only problem with this is if you accept contributions
later from developers who refuse to license their changes under any but
the GPL. However, like several of the large GPL projects, the solution
to this may simply be that any changes submitted to the PanoTools base
must have copyright signed over to Helmut or the maintainer so that
they are free to re-license the whole work to anyone. I would totally
support this - it may seem like some an end-run around the GPL, but it
is not - it's totally within the parameters of copyright (as is GPL)
and there's no reason you can't maintain multiple licenses to deal with
JUST these kind of issues (see the MySQL project, for instance).
Best,
Roger
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/.Cr1lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoTools/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
#removed#
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/