Using librtlsdr in BSD 2-clause project?

Hi,

Post by Lev Serebryakov
I want to use librtlsdr (as plugin) in BSD 2-clause licensed project
(I don;t want to announce it yet, till it will be alpha-quality!).
according to GPL FAQ I could not dynamically link GPL2 code into
not-GPL code
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic).
So, I ask direct permission from authors to use librtlsdr in BSD
2-clause licensed open-source project.

Disclaimer: IANAL, and what follows should not be considered legal
advice or acknowledgment.

But here's my current view on it :

The text you reference doesn't say you can't, it just says that the
compiled result will be GPL (which is covered by the fact that the BSD
license allows to sublicense).

So what this essentially means is that you can do it (preferably as an
option, so you can build without it), but the actually binaries will
be GPL and not BSD and therefore subject to GPL restrictions
concerning their distribution.

So imagine someone does a proprietary derivative of your projects or
links proprietary code to it, they can only redistribute the version
of your project compiled _without_ support for rtlsdr (or remove it
from the codebase all together).

This is used by several projects where you have to manually enable
some dependencies during the ./configure stage, so that by default,
they only build using BSD stuff, but you can enable some optional
modules that use GPL code (but then you must be aware that the
resulting binary is GPL and not BSD anymore).

(This is of course all assuming good faith. Anything that's
specifically designed for the sole purpose to circumvent the GPL by
wrappers using other license is differently covered by "copyright
circumvention" laws)

Cheers,

Sylvain

Alexander Kurpiers

2014-10-07 06:46:30 UTC

Post by Lev Serebryakov
So, I ask direct permission from authors to use librtlsdr in BSD
2-clause licensed open-source project.

Actually, it would make far more sense to change the license of the
library from GPL to LGPL. Then corner cases like this are well covered.
The executables can of course stay GPL.

For the application programmer a GPL'ed library is a pain, as it either
forces your app to be GPL (which for various reasons is not always
feasible), not to ship with the rtlsdr library (but have the customer
install it from some internet source - e.g. the way SDR# does it with
their install script http://sdrsharp.com/downloads/sdr-install.zip) or
do a wrapper (e.g. use something like rtl_tcp).

The issue has already been discussed a number of times on this list -
unfortunately without results
(http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/osmocom-sdr/2012-September/000276.html
http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/osmocom-sdr/2014-March/001197.html)

Regards,

Alexander

Lev Serebryakov

2014-10-07 10:31:26 UTC

Post by Alexander Kurpiers

Post by Lev Serebryakov
So, I ask direct permission from authors to use librtlsdr in BSD
2-clause licensed open-source project.

Actually, it would make far more sense to change the license of
the library from GPL to LGPL. Then corner cases like this are well
covered. The executables can of course stay GPL.

LGPL will be ideal, IMHO.

Post by Alexander Kurpiers
For the application programmer a GPL'ed library is a pain, as it
either forces your app to be GPL (which for various reasons is not
always feasible), not to ship with the rtlsdr library (but have the
customer install it from some internet source - e.g. the way SDR#
does it with their install script
http://sdrsharp.com/downloads/sdr-install.zip) or

Sylvain Munaut

2014-10-07 10:41:42 UTC

Post by Lev Serebryakov
SDR# is strange: it doesn't provide even sources of plugin, but
plugin linked directly with library become GPL for sure. Another
question, why SDR# itself doesn't become GPLes, when it links with
library via dynamically-loaded plugin (exactly same situation as with
my project).

Mmmm ... when we first evaluated SDR#, the source of the plugin was
available and the plugin was shipped separately _without_ any
automatic installer (and yes, this makes a difference, automation
makes it circuvemption of copyriht covered by DMCA or equivalent).

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, we'll take the appropriate actions.

Cheers,

Sylvain

j***@earthlink.net

2014-10-07 17:22:01 UTC

Sylvain, YOU and the community, particularly the community, will get more out of
it if you leave Youssef alone than if you wave a red flag in his nose. He's that
kind of a person. And I cannot say I blame him for it.

The license for a DLL or shared library should be LGPL. I realize you are stuck
at GPL. But, you can do an Obama and not be a stickler for enforcement. This is
one instance where that might be appropriate.

{^_^}

Post by Sylvain Munaut

Mmmm ... when we first evaluated SDR#, the source of the plugin was
available and the plugin was shipped separately _without_ any
automatic installer (and yes, this makes a difference, automation
makes it circuvemption of copyriht covered by DMCA or equivalent).
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, we'll take the appropriate actions.
Cheers,
Sylvain

Ralph A. Schmid, dk5ras

2014-10-07 17:47:58 UTC

I fully second this, and your first more elaborate email sounds sensible to me, although I do not know enough about it to really evaluate it.

Ralph.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, 7 October, 2014 19:22
To: Sylvain Munaut; Lev Serebryakov
Subject: Re: Using librtlsdr in BSD 2-clause project?
Sylvain, YOU and the community, particularly the community, will get more out of it if you leave Youssef alone than if you wave a red
flag in his nose. He's that kind of a person. And I cannot say I blame him for it.
The license for a DLL or shared library should be LGPL. I realize you are stuck at GPL. But, you can do an Obama and not be a stickler
for enforcement. This is one instance where that might be appropriate.
{^_^}

Post by Sylvain Munaut

Mmmm ... when we first evaluated SDR#, the source of the plugin was
available and the plugin was shipped separately _without_ any
automatic installer (and yes, this makes a difference, automation
makes it circuvemption of copyriht covered by DMCA or equivalent).
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, we'll take the appropriate actions.
Cheers,
Sylvain

j***@earthlink.net

2014-10-07 17:17:58 UTC

Regarding that I've been keeping my mouth shut. You are right. I for one
consider not releasing the SDRSharp RTL USB driver source is legally the wrong
thing to do. That makes GPL a rather dog in the manger kind of license.

RANT WARNING - like - I have a face to feed.

The GPL advocates are trying to force all software to be FOSS by removing
freedom of use and distribution to software with their license. This makes GPL
very useful to big boys like RedHat and the Ubuntu crowd. It guarantees their
monopoly on related products. It favors two outfits that IMAO qualify as overly
large organizations. They make money with their support model. *I* cannot do
that. There is only one of me. When I build something that is GPLed I have to
give away my work and derive no income from it. I either support the software
for money or I build new software for free. Somehow that model sounds way off
the mark. I am suddenly a slave to my own software supporting it without any
time to do development. Worse, as a single person I am not in a position to
charge large amounts of money to support my product so that I can live and
clothe, shelter, and feed a family on it. So I have to develop software for free
and watch others incorporate it into dristros and make income to feed their own
faces.

If software is going to be free then a BSD/Apache/MIT sort of license is more to
the point. THAT is free no strings software. If I improve it I can take it
private and feed my face. If I am smart, which most developers aren't, I can
keep it private until I am a couple releases beyond the freebie stuff and then
contribute the one release old code back to the community to help fertilize the
community. In that case I am motivated to keep developing. I get to eat. I get
to live somewhere not sheltered in cardboard under a bridge. I get to afford new
clothes once and awhile.

So, in the mean time, if I want something with rtlsdr I fully intend to follow
the above model for features I want. I'll let people know what I did. But they
can bloody well implement it themselves until the date I start sharing that code
with others. GPL cannot stop me from reciprocating the dog in the manger
approach to licensing code. IMAO free as in GPL is not free. Free as in BSD is
free. Somewhere in between there MAY be a sweet spot that does not expect
developers to work for free or for RedHat.

Well, you asked for it. So I fired a broadside. Now I'm going back into the
woodwork.

{^_^} Joanne - NOT a fan of GPL.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Post by Alexander Kurpiers

Post by Lev Serebryakov
So, I ask direct permission from authors to use librtlsdr in BSD
2-clause licensed open-source project.

Actually, it would make far more sense to change the license of
the library from GPL to LGPL. Then corner cases like this are well
covered. The executables can of course stay GPL.

LGPL will be ideal, IMHO.

SDR# is strange: it doesn't provide even sources of plugin, but
plugin linked directly with library become GPL for sure. Another
question, why SDR# itself doesn't become GPLes, when it links with
library via dynamically-loaded plugin (exactly same situation as with
my project).
- --
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)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=goG0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Peter Stuge

2014-10-07 18:08:21 UTC

as a single person I am not in a position to charge large amounts of money

This has nothing to do with SDR but: Why not?

If your software has amazing value then you can and should charge
amazing amounts of money.

If someone comes along and offers up some competition then you will
have to decide what to do about that of course.

But I think the economics apply the same whether you are large or
small. Both have advantages and disadvantages. It's impossible for
the small to make and fulfill on a 24/7 commitment, as a simple
example. But on the other hand it is impossible for the large to be
as quick and flexible as the small. Work with what you've got,
instead of against what you haven't. :)

So I have to develop software for free

No you don't. If you choose to then all the better, and kudos to you
for making the world better! But you don't have to.

And you certainly don't have to provide any support. That is really
explicit in the license.

Of course people want you to work for free and do their job so that
they can feed their own faces without having to make an effort. If
they ask and you do then they win. If they ask and you don't then you
are only fulfilling on what you agreed to in the license (ie. nothing!).

People really need to learn to deal with that aspect of open source.

But to be fair, it is completely different from everything they know.

Kind regards and happy hacking

//Peter

j***@earthlink.net

2014-10-07 20:50:32 UTC

as a single person I am not in a position to charge large amounts of money

This has nothing to do with SDR but: Why not?
If your software has amazing value then you can and should charge
amazing amounts of money.
If someone comes along and offers up some competition then you will
have to decide what to do about that of course.
But I think the economics apply the same whether you are large or
small. Both have advantages and disadvantages. It's impossible for
the small to make and fulfill on a 24/7 commitment, as a simple
example. But on the other hand it is impossible for the large to be
as quick and flexible as the small. Work with what you've got,
instead of against what you haven't. :)

When they can compete with me with my own software I rather object to it.
So I only develop what I want. Some slight efforts I share. Other efforts are
sitting around here doing things I need, others might need but won't get, and
earning money by selling proprietary software that never touched GPL "stuff".

So I have to develop software for free

No you don't. If you choose to then all the better, and kudos to you
for making the world better! But you don't have to.

Who is going to pay me beyond the first person? After that or maybe after the
third person it's spread world wide by the pirates and sales stop. Been there.
Done that. NEVER AGAIN. You want it? You pay for it. You don't get source code.
And you get a license dongle. That has worked a little better.

I guess I also don't like developing free software because people have the
temerity to demand, not ask politely but demand, new features their way for
free. If I don't need it - I ain't gonna do it for free. I gotta eat. At least
now I get SOME help from Social Security. Working for pay means I get to eat out
a few more times each month.

Post by Peter Stuge
And you certainly don't have to provide any support. That is really
explicit in the license.

If I give away the software how do I eat if I don't do for pay support? Think it
through.

Post by Peter Stuge
Of course people want you to work for free and do their job so that
they can feed their own faces without having to make an effort. If
they ask and you do then they win. If they ask and you don't then you
are only fulfilling on what you agreed to in the license (ie. nothing!).
People really need to learn to deal with that aspect of open source.

I could deal with it if I had some benefactor paying me for sitting on my duff
developing software to give away for free. The only benefactors I have run
across want me to develop malware. Sadly I grew up at a time when ethics and
morality mattered more than they do today. And it's hardwired into me.

Post by Peter Stuge
But to be fair, it is completely different from everything they know.

I know hunger - not starvation thankfully but I do know sincere heavy duty
hunger. No thanks.

Nobody yet has told me how to make a living developing free software as a
private individual. GPL effectively precludes that. Walk it through with an
accurate view of reality. You either find somebody or some foundation to pay you
or you wash dishes to live and in your one hour a day that is free you code.
Sadly that produces crappy code.

{^_^}

Peter Stuge

2014-10-08 09:54:45 UTC

Post by j***@earthlink.net
So I have to develop software for free

No you don't. If you choose to then all the better, and kudos to you
for making the world better! But you don't have to.

Who is going to pay me beyond the first person?

Just get paid once. And again, if you create amazing value then you
should get paid an amazing amount.

Post by j***@earthlink.net
I also don't like developing free software because people have the
temerity to demand, not ask politely but demand, new features their
way for free.

Yeah, I know that. I don't think one should listen to all the demands
made by people on the internet however. Somebody is wrong on the
intenet quite a lot.

Post by Peter Stuge
And you certainly don't have to provide any support. That is really
explicit in the license.

If I give away the software how do I eat if I don't do for pay support?

You provide no support at all (like the license says) and earn money
developing something else.

Post by j***@earthlink.net
Think it through.

Yeah, I have.

Post by Peter Stuge
Of course people want you to work for free and do their job so that
they can feed their own faces without having to make an effort.

Post by Peter Stuge
People really need to learn to deal with that aspect of open source.

I could deal with it

I'm not saying you should deal with it, I'm saying the people who
demand things for free should deal with the fact that there is
explicitly in capital letters no warranty with the cowboy software
they might build their entire business on.

Post by j***@earthlink.net
Nobody yet has told me how to make a living developing free software
as a private individual. GPL effectively precludes that.

A small business can not compete with a much larger one doing the
same things. The small business has to do its own thing. GPL or no
GPL.

I know several small businesses which make a living developing GPL
software.

I think part of the problem may be a confusion between software
development as a service and software development creating a product.

Pure software products generally aren't worth very much today, but
that doesn't mean that it is impossible to create amazing value just
with software.

//Peter

Sylvain Munaut

2014-10-08 10:06:02 UTC

@All: This has nothing to do with SDR or even the OP question anymore,
so let's cut this thread ok.

Feel free to take it to private discussion if you wish.

Cheers,

Sylvain

j***@earthlink.net

2014-10-08 18:25:08 UTC

Post by j***@earthlink.net
So I have to develop software for free

No you don't. If you choose to then all the better, and kudos to you
for making the world better! But you don't have to.

Who is going to pay me beyond the first person?

Just get paid once. And again, if you create amazing value then you
should get paid an amazing amount.

I cannot charge one person that much money. And why should I demand that one
person pay me for all my development costs? The market involved where I got gut
punched is small and had a use for some particular odd bits of software in the
show control field. Theaters are notoriously parsimonious.

Post by j***@earthlink.net
I also don't like developing free software because people have the
temerity to demand, not ask politely but demand, new features their
way for free.

Yeah, I know that. I don't think one should listen to all the demands
made by people on the internet however. Somebody is wrong on the
intenet quite a lot.

Post by Peter Stuge
And you certainly don't have to provide any support. That is really
explicit in the license.

If I give away the software how do I eat if I don't do for pay support?

You provide no support at all (like the license says) and earn money
developing something else.

That's good in the ideal. Think it through.

Post by j***@earthlink.net
Think it through.

Yeah, I have.

No, it very much appears you have not. You listen to open sores idealists rather
than think for yourself.

Post by Peter Stuge
Of course people want you to work for free and do their job so that
they can feed their own faces without having to make an effort.

Post by Peter Stuge
People really need to learn to deal with that aspect of open source.

I could deal with it

I already wash my hands of a product that I release open sores. If it is
licensed and gets pirated I put copy protection on it when I add features.

Post by j***@earthlink.net
Nobody yet has told me how to make a living developing free software
as a private individual. GPL effectively precludes that.

A small business can not compete with a much larger one doing the
same things. The small business has to do its own thing. GPL or no
GPL.

The technical term here is "brown stinky substance such as emanates from the
South facing end of a North facing fertile male bovine." Did that successfully
for years with some side products using license keys. It helped that the (much)
larger business involved had developed a bad reputation in the industry. Theme
parks get upset when their show control equipment dies on them. It costs LOTS of
money to have a show down.

Post by Peter Stuge
I know several small businesses which make a living developing GPL
software.

I'm somewhat surprised by that. The little software gadgets I build were
targeted at a very small segment of a small industry. Yet we had people who'd
never bought one of the tools calling and asking for support. Of course, we told
them to purchase a license on the spot or go fly a kite. That still cost
development time.

I suppose I can see a company commissioning me to do some strange bookkeeping
software designed to make their business more efficient. Even if I license it
GPL they can keep it to themselves to avoid feeding their competitors. That
might make a big enough charge I could live on the profits from a couple jobs a
year. I don't do that kind of software.

Post by Peter Stuge
I think part of the problem may be a confusion between software
development as a service and software development creating a product.

Perhaps - devices to make say PLC devices look like MIDI devices to a Windows PC
do not have a huge market. But it is larger than a single customer. Those are
the gadgets that ended up pirated. That rather soured my attitude. It became
obvious that without serious copy protection they were a "get paid for it once"
item. And the customers were not about to pay that much money.

Post by Peter Stuge
Pure software products generally aren't worth very much today, but
that doesn't mean that it is impossible to create amazing value just
with software.

Yeah, particularly when they are GPL. That is why I tend to stay away from GPL
for anything I take seriously. I look at the trifles I do for GPL (such as
fixing the RDSK (boot sector for Amiga disks) code in the Linux kernel) as
community service.

{^_^}

Rasz

2014-10-08 06:43:33 UTC