Releasing a programm

[thometal]

Hi,

i want release in the near future an other zpaq gui, but as opensource.

I consider github for this. But iam not sure how to deal with the legal stuff, licences and so on. Do have any advice?
What is also also important, before releasing?

thx in advance

[Piotr Tarsa]

AFAIK GitHub allows to host your sources for free as long as your program is open-source. You don't have to pick up any specific license. But maybe I'm wrong here.

There are many widely recognized open-source licenses you can use. But zpaq is GPL licensed, so I don't know if you can use any other license is you plan to integrate zpaq. libzpaq OTOH is more liberally licensed. It probably depends whether libzpaq alone is enough for you.

[thometal]

hm ok my program will not include zpaq, user has to download zpaq seperatly and connect with my program so i guess gpl should no problem, do i see this correct?

[fcorbelli]

AFAIK you have 3 "great" licenses (in many flavours). EDIT: I know... I know... there is about 2^32 different GPL versions...
GPL, that state "if I use YOUR software, and want to sell, then I must release my source code too"
LGPL: "if I want to use YOUR software, in mine, I can sell mine, if I state that some pieces are yours"
BSD: "take the code, do whatever you want, sell it if you can"


But the problem is: if I steal your GPL code, than "repack" and sell, what you can do?
Very little, AFAIK.
It's more a "gentlemen's agreement" that really license, think about the whole world.
You can challenge (in theory) someone in EU, in USA, in Japan and so on... but what about China, or Middle Est countries, or so on?

[thometal]

ok thx for the answers, my code is depending the epl (eclipse public licsense), so far i have understand this i cannot gpl my program because epl !~ gpl whats the difference between gplv2 & gplv3?

[fcorbelli]

ok thx for the answers, my code is depending the epl (eclipse public licsense), so far i have understand this i cannot gpl my program because epl !~ gpl whats the difference between gplv2 & gplv3?

A lot, so difficoult that you could use "diff"

But the "very" question is: you want to protect your code, from stealing and selling, or not?

And, moreover, in USA or UE? Because 99.9999% of GPL stuff, copyright clime etc is USA-based.
In Italy, for example, AFAIK GPL etc does't have any legal strength.
"Gentlemen's agreement"

[Piotr Tarsa]

It's more a "gentlemen's agreement" that really license, think about the whole world.
You can challenge (in theory) someone in EU, in USA, in Japan and so on... but what about China, or Middle Est countries, or so on?

Well, Chinese tend to ignore everything (or at least that's the impression I got) I would say that if your license is in force in USA, EU, Japan and some other countries/ regions then it's enough.

In Italy, for example, AFAIK GPL etc does't have any legal strength.

Source?

[fcorbelli]

Source?

me. italy court's informatic expert since 2000

[Matt Mahoney]

zpaq is GPL v3. It includes libzpaq, which is public domain, and divsufsort, which is MIT. If your program is open source, it should not be any problem to distribute ZPAQ with it, even if you change the code. All the licenses allow that, and only GPL requires that you make the source available. A few other people have already written GUIs for zpaq.

You could even write a closed source GUI wrapper around zpaq if you wanted. The GPL says if you distribute zpaq.exe you have to include zpaq.cpp (maybe with your changes). But you can license your own code how you like, even sell it.

[m^2]

If your program is open source, it should not be any problem to distribute ZPAQ with it, even if you change the code. All the licenses allow that, and only GPL requires that you make the source available. A few other people have already written GUIs for zpaq.

Not true. There are many licenses that are open source by OSI definition that are not GPL v3 compatible. GPL v2, GPL v1, Apache v1.x, Eclipse Public License, Mozilla Public License to name just a few.
GPL v3 is extremely unfriendly when it comes to what you bundle it with.

[Matt Mahoney]

How is GPL v2 not compatible with GPL v3? GPL allows you to use any later version at your option.

Anyway I don't see any problem distributing your own open source code bundled with zpaq. It might be a problem for someone wanting to use zpaq code in a closed source program. That's the idea.

[fcorbelli]

...GPL allows you to use any later version at your option...

Ahem... this is a cleary example of different types of laws, from "UK-like" and "Western Europa's like".
In Italy, for example, if you subscribe a contract with a clause that is not in harmony with Codice Civile, it's simply null.
In other countries (USA, UK & "cousins") does not exist something like Codice Civile (back from Ancient Roman Republic about 200 B.C.) therefore it's very hard to
align licenses worldwide.
As previously written, in Italy's law does not exist anything like GPL at all (or m$ license too )
Ours laws require a registered patent to take a "legal shield".

Statement like "use at your how risk" or "I give no warrany" simply does not exist for onerous software, because you are subscribing a written or oral contract.

For gratis one... it's a debated question, but the discriminate seems to be... money.

In others country based on latin-like right (example France or Germany) the situation is (about) the same.

We (UE) have a bunch of problem tempting to amalgamate such question in two dozen of different systems, from 40 years.

[Piotr Tarsa]

So it means that an Italian guy can sue Microsoft every time he experiences BSOD or gets a virus on his Windows?

[fcorbelli]

So it means that an Italian guy can sue Microsoft every time he experiences BSOD or gets a virus on his Windows?

Exactly our former President of Republic try exactly that, writing to Bill Gates
http://www.repubblica.it/online/tecn...a/cossiga.html
http://www.repubblica.it/online/tecn...ntervista.html


But you have to prove that a malfunction of the software cause the loss of money.
If you do => then you win (in Court).
Just today I will go to a litigation for 500K euro software, yesterday for 60K.

[m^2]

How is GPL v2 not compatible with GPL v3? GPL allows you to use any later version at your option.

Anyway I don't see any problem distributing your own open source code bundled with zpaq. It might be a problem for someone wanting to use zpaq code in a closed source program. That's the idea.

No, 'or any later version' is a practice recommended by GNU, not a part of the license. Unless you add it explicitly, your code will be unmixable with other gpl variants. Even if you do, it will be unmixable with older versions. And even if you explicitly permit any gpl, it won't work with many other licenses.
It would be very hard to legally express your intention. gpl mostly tried to do that. Failed badly.

[fcorbelli]

It would be very hard to legally express your intention.

I do not agree.
It's rather simple to write a clear, and succinct, statement.
The problem, for me, is...
What happens, if I don't like your "license" (no more that a textfile)? And If in my country only patents give you rights on software?

[thometal]

other question i have icons which are gplv3 http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/?content=128143 can still my program be in MI, public domain etc? Or its required to be also in gplv3?