Bugzilla – Bug 14194
license screensavers and other appropriate code under BSD
Last modified: 2010-01-15 07:20:22 UTC
https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=430079&highlight=license#post430079 In June Dean said "We'll soon be moving a bunch of the code in Squeezeplay to the LGPL to help this problem. Certainly many of the base applets, including screensavers, would be prime candidates." but apparently this has not happened yet (https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=460391#post460391)
Also see https://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=430090&postcount=16 which suggests that LGPL might not work, that other OSI-approved licenses like BSD or Apache might be better.
Mickey: is this yours to track or Pat's?
Pat, this bug really needs addressing soon. We have a very very small core group of 3rd party developers. In particular, two of the very cream of this crop, Peter Watkins and Erland Isaksson, have been concerned about the somewhat closed nature of our LPSL licensing for much of our Squeezeplay code. We need to address this and remove LPSL wherever we can. 3rd party development is a really key aspect of our product story, and we're going down the wrong road closing these good people out. In the absence of good documentation (and let's be honest, we're a failure on that front) we can point people to code examples. But if the developers are concerned that even looking at the code is onerous under this license, then we've got a problem.
(In reply to comment #3) > Pat, this bug really needs addressing soon. > > We have a very very small core group of 3rd party developers. In particular, > two of the very cream of this crop, Peter Watkins and Erland Isaksson, have > been concerned about the somewhat closed nature of our LPSL licensing for much > of our Squeezeplay code. > > We need to address this and remove LPSL wherever we can. > I strongly agree. Although there are only 2 3rd party devs (so far) who feel strongly about this, 2 out of only 10 or 12 is a big hit. Even if we are successful in attracting more 3rd parties, we need to accept the fact that the exact contributors we want are also the most likely people to be zealots about this issue.
I really think there are more than two third party developers that are concerned about this, at least I know there have been more people involved in LPSL related discussions in the forum. I think the LPSL licensing tends to scare new third party developers away before they engage themselves into learning lua. I also think the LPSL license is a major reason why you haven't seen more third party applet development so far, at least I know it's one of the main reasons why I haven't looked at lua until recently. One reason is that it makes apple development hard or almost impossible since the code really is the only documentation available, another reason is that the LPSL license gives third party developers an indication that you don't want them to share their work. I know you probably want us to share applets but it feels very wrong that I have to break the licensing terms to do so with reasonable effort. The problem with this is that if I don't follow Logitech's licensing terms it feels wrong to expect other people to follow my licensing terms. I'm guessing that the main reason that you have the LPSL license is to make sure no other hardware maker can use your software on their own hardware. To me it feels like it should be enough to have the core licensed under LPSL to avoid this. Using a more open license, which allows re-distribution of modifications, for everything in the "applets" directories shouldn't cause you any problems. If you look at plugin developers on the Squeezebox Server side, I'm pretty sure most third party developers has started plugin development with an existing plugin and modified the code to make it do that they wanted. This is not possible on the Squeezeplay side due to LPSL licensing where only the very simple TestApplet is licensed under a usable license.
This bug is not a 7.4/P1, which has the official designation of "gates release of baby boom" Let's solve this as soon as possible, but by next Monday? Dream on, this is legal stuff :)
We have to get this done for 7.5
I believe the thinking now is that this is going to be BSD. If this is going to make people freak out, please don't kill the messenger.
Moving to next release for further discussion
If I may enter my opinion, I think an Apache, BSD, or similar license is a much better choice. Well established in the legal world, and much easier to take than any of the GPL/LGPL stuff. There is a bit to much baggage in the whole GPL family, as Richard has strong opinions.
Pat, per the title and comment #8, BSD *is* what we're talking about. Nobody's arguing for GPL or LGPL right now. It's been two months since comment #8, and nobody has brought up those licenses here except you. :-)
I've just been pointed to this thread and it seems to me to be a no-brainer to allow the likes or erland access to more of the base applets so he can work his magic and make the software more appealing to the masses.
== Auto-comment from SVN commit #8347 to the jive repo by bklaas == == https://svn.slimdevices.com/jive?view=revision&revision=8347 == Fixed Bug: 14194 Description: Change Squeezeplay license to be BSD. Yes, you read it right. WOOT!
== Auto-comment from SVN commit #8353 to the jive repo by bklaas == == https://svn.slimdevices.com/jive?view=revision&revision=8353 == Bug: 14194 Description: fix license wording in files added for 7.5
== Auto-comment from SVN commit #8355 to the jive repo by bklaas == == https://svn.slimdevices.com/jive?view=revision&revision=8355 == Bug: 14194 Description: add BSD license footer to AlarmSnoozeApplet