Audacity Forum

OK, it's working with the static build.

I was a bit surprised to see a license notification saying some rights reserved in what I thought was GPL software.
I see now that the VST plug-in is licensed under MIT/X11 License.
What rights are reserved?
Is it OK to mix and match licenses like this? I'm not a lawyer and no expert in this type of thing, but I would have thought that there would be incompatibility between the GPL license of the original code and a more restrictive license for the VST version, assuming that the VST version is derived from the original command line version.

Gunnar wrote:

Robert J. H. wrote:Although this smoothing is applied, the plug-in seems to have a steppy response.

Not quite sure what you mean with that

It does not seem to be audible with real-world audio, but this image is a generated "440 Hz sine tone. 30 seconds duration, amplitude 0.8" to which I have applied the VST version with the default settings. Zooming in shows small, but clearly visible 500 ms "steps" as the amplitude is ramped up.

steve wrote:OK, it's working with the static build.

I was a bit surprised to see a license notification saying some rights reserved in what I thought was GPL software.
I see now that the VST plug-in is licensed under MIT/X11 License.
What rights are reserved?
Is it OK to mix and match licenses like this? I'm not a lawyer and no expert in this type of thing, but I would have thought that there would be incompatibility between the GPL license of the original code and a more restrictive license for the VST version, assuming that the VST version is derived from the original command line version.

MIT is compatible with GPL. This allows MIT to be combined with GPL, so I think it is quite in order to present the VST plug-in licence as under overall GPL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License .

I'm less clear about the "some rights reserved" inserted into these licences.


Gale

steve wrote:Is it OK to mix and match licenses like this?

Gale Andrews wrote:

steve wrote:OK, it's working with the static build.

I was a bit surprised to see a license notification saying some rights reserved in what I thought was GPL software.
I see now that the VST plug-in is licensed under MIT/X11 License.
What rights are reserved?
Is it OK to mix and match licenses like this? I'm not a lawyer and no expert in this type of thing, but I would have thought that there would be incompatibility between the GPL license of the original code and a more restrictive license for the VST version, assuming that the VST version is derived from the original command line version.

MIT is compatible with GPL. This allows MIT to be combined with GPL, so I think it is quite in order to present the VST plug-in licence as under overall GPL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License .

The question whether software licenses are "compatible" arises when you take somebody else's code and create a derivative work from it. This is not the case here, so this question is actually irrelevant.

More specifically, the original author of a software, who obvisouly owns all rights on his or her own code, can decide to release his or her own work under whatever license he or she deems suitable. This could be one of the "standard" OpenSource licenses, it could be a custom-made OpenSource license or it may be a proprietary commercial license. And of course the original author is free to put some parts of his own work under one license and other parts of his own work under another license. Heck, the original author is even free to release his own software under two (or more) different and incompatible licenses! Many projects, like Qt Framework or x264, use a "dual license" model: They release their code under the (L)GPL and, at the same time, under a proprietary/commercial license - so every user can choose the license that covers his uses cases.

Having said that, there is absolutely nothing in the GPL that would prevent GPL'ed code to be combined with code that is released under the MIT license. Neither does the MIT license prevent code that was released under MIT license to be combined with GPL'ed code. However, it should be clear that any derivative work that contains some (L)GPL'ed code has to be released under the (L)GPL again - unless the original author explicitly agrees to the license change.

Gale Andrews wrote:I'm less clear about the "some rights reserved" inserted into these licences.

If the author of a software decides to share his code under the GPL or LGPL, this doesn't change anything about the fact that he or she still owns all rights on the code.

With the GPL or LGPL, the author allows everybody to use, modify and redistribute the software without the need for any additional permission, as long as the restrictions and obligations that are imposed by the GPL/LGPL are respected. However, if anybody wants to do something with code that the GPL/LGPL does not explicitly allow, he or she still must ask the original author (copyright holder) for permission!

If the original author gave up his rights on the software by releasing his software under the GPL/LGPL, which of course is not the case, then any license terms would by completely pointless. That's because, if the original author gave up his rights on the software, then who would own those rights instead? And who would demand that the license terms are respected, even if in court? Nobody? So if nobody could actually enforce the license, what would it be worth?

Yes, nothing

BTW: You will often find the line "All rights reserved" in copyright notices. That's because this line was required in copyright notices in the past. Without that line it was not possible (or at least more difficult) to enforce the author's rights, e.g. to sue somebody who violates the license terms. Today, as far as I know, this line is no longer necessary, in most countries. Anyhow, I tend to keep the variant "Some rights reserved" to make clear that this software is OpenSource but not "public domain" (that is: it's "free software" but that does not mean you do whatever you want with it). The restrictions and obligations of the respective software license, e.g. GPL or LPGL, apply.

steve wrote:What rights are reserved?

All rights that are not explicitly granted to everybody by the (L)GPL are reserved. And even those rights that are granted, are only granted if you agree to the (L)GPL - which comes with certain restrictions and obligations.

And the most important restriction/obligation of the GPL is: If you incorporate some GPL'ed code into your own project, then your own project becomes a derivate work and thus it must be shared under the conditions of the GPL too.

The LGPL says pretty much the same, except that linking your program against an LGPL'ed library does no make your project a derivate work. With the GPL, your project would be considered a derivate work, in that case.

Thanks for the explanation Gunnar. My questions were not meant as an attack - I was asking because I was unclear what was meant.
I'm still not sure that I'm 100% clear about the "some rights reserved" (I've not seen that added to a GPL license before). Are you saying that some rights are reserved, as described by the respective GPL/LGPL/MIT license terms, but no additional restrictions? Clarity on this point may be important if we want to list your plug-in in any of the official documentation.

steve wrote:Thanks for the explanation Gunnar. My questions were not meant as an attack - I was asking because I was unclear what was meant.
I'm still not sure that I'm 100% clear about the "some rights reserved" (I've not seen that added to a GPL license before). Are you saying that some rights are reserved, as described by the respective GPL/LGPL/MIT license terms, but no additional restrictions? Clarity on this point may be important if we want to list your plug-in in any of the official documentation.

Well, if the original author of the software decided to released his software under the (L)GPL, then you can use it exactly as describes in the (L)GPL license terms, without the need for further permission by the author.

But still you are not allowed to do anything with the software that the (L)GPL doesn't allow explicitly. If you want to do something that goes beyond the permission given by the (L)GPL - for example, incorporate the code into your ClosedSource commercial product that you are going to keep ClosedSource - then you still have to ask the author for permission. And he or she may deny it, or ask for money

If the original author didn't reserve at last some rights, then the software would effectively become "public domain". And then some company could come along and incorporate that software into their commercial products without ever telling anybody or without ever giving back anything. And that even would be perfectly legal, since the code is "public domain". Thus, if you wish that the (L)GPL applies to your work, you have to reserve some rights...

Gunnar wrote: if the original author of the software decided to released his software under the (L)GPL, then you can use it exactly as describes in the (L)GPL license terms, without the need for further permission by the author.

But still you are not allowed to do anything with the software that the (L)GPL doesn't allow explicitly.

Agreed, so I'm unclear why you have an additional clause saying that some rights are reserved.

The (L)GPL states what is allowed and what is not. Both specifically allow use in commercial products, provided that it remains under the original license terms. If you wish to prohibit that, then I don't see how you can describe it as (L)GPL because your license terms prohibit use that is explicitly granted by the (L)GPL license.
(Ref. GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... mmercially)

steve wrote:

Gunnar wrote: if the original author of the software decided to released his software under the (L)GPL, then you can use it exactly as describes in the (L)GPL license terms, without the need for further permission by the author.

But still you are not allowed to do anything with the software that the (L)GPL doesn't allow explicitly.

Agreed, so I'm unclear why you have an additional clause saying that some rights are reserved.

The (L)GPL states what is allowed and what is not. Both specifically allow use in commercial products, provided that it remains under the original license terms. If you wish to prohibit that, then I don't see how you can describe it as (L)GPL because your license terms prohibit use that is explicitly granted by the (L)GPL license.
(Ref. GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... mmercially)

Yes, the GPL explicitly allows commercial use of the software. But it does not allow incorporating the GPL'ed code into (commercial) ClosedSource applications.

That means, if a company use the GPL'ed software, as-is, for commercial purposes, that is perfectly fine. That's because the GPL'ed software may be used for free and for all purposes. Even if they deliver the GPL'ed software, as-is, along with their commercial products, that is still perfectly fine. That's because the GPL'ed software may be redistributed freely (though sources must be provided along with the binaries).

But: As soon as they take the GPL'ed code (or parts of it) and incorporate it into their own software, they create a "derivate work" and thus they must release their software under the GPL too - if the intend to distribute it. That means the company would have to make their own source codes public, if they want to include any GPL'ed code - which of course is not an option for most commercial software products

Sure, and I think that is all covered in the GPL wording and documentation.

The aspect that I'm asking for clarification about is: Does your software have license restrictions that go beyond (ie more restrictive than) the respective LGPL/GPL/MIT licenses or is your software under standard LGPL/GPL/MIT licenses?

steve wrote:Does your software have license restrictions that go beyond (ie more restrictive than) the respective LGPL/GPL/MIT licenses or is your software under standard LGPL/GPL/MIT licenses?

Nope. The README file clearly states which parts of the software are released under which license. The source/header files contain corresponding notices. And therefore you can use the software according to the respective license. It's as simple as that. I don't know how this could be made any clearer. There are no "secret" additional restrictions. Such restrictions would be void anyway, if they are mentioned nowhere in the license terms, right?

As said before, once the original author has decided to released his software under the GPL, you can use that software according to the license terms of the GPL. Now and for all future! Sure, the original author (copyright holder) can decide that future versions will no longer be released under the GPL. But even in that case, you could continue using the "old" version (the one that had been released under the GPL) as long as you wish, according to the GPL license terms. Finally, if the original author wanted to apply additional restrictions to his software, restrictions that go beyond the "official" GPL, he/she would have to write down those additional restrictions into the license! That would no longer be the "official" GPL though, but some custom-made license (based on the GPL). That's is perfectly possible, of course. But it doesn't apply here. Sneaking in additional restrictions retroactively isn't possible either.