Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tom Nardi (tomnardi@hackaday.social)'s status on Thursday, 15-May-2025 14:42:42 JST Tom Nardi

   Just published update on the ongoing libogc license situation.

   Before it looked like they had just copied BSD code without attribution, which was a relatively easy fix. But now there's evidence that GPL code from Linux 2.6 found its way in there -- which is a whole other story.

   https://hackaday.com/2025/05/14/rtems-statement-deepens-libogc-license-controversy/

   #opensource #linux #software

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 15-May-2025 14:42:41 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     @tomnardi sadly, some common misconceptions in the article. E.g. there is no need to “relicense” — nor is permission needed by anyone to distribute libogc under the GNU GPL. The 3-clause BSD license is compatible with the GPL, and the GPL only requires that the work is distributed under the same terms. You do need to keep the license notices and what not though…

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 15-May-2025 15:01:07 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     @tomnardi and even then, there is probobly nothing libogc needs to do anyway other than making it clear with the copyright notices (which seems to be the big issue), and only stating that parts of libogc are 3BSD and others are GPL, and that to distribute one need to follow the terms of the GPL.

     One can always mix code with compatible licenses, each individual part is licensed under its own license.

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 18-May-2025 16:02:40 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     @tomnardi The GNU GPL is not a restrictive license, and allows for the exact same freedoms as the Zlib license. There is absolutely no need (though maybe a nice gesture) to consult to the copyright holders. But you don't say what you don't think the situation is "that simple" (not saying that it is, but it is simpler than getting hold of all copyright holders and what not) ...

   • Embed this notice
     Tom Nardi (tomnardi@hackaday.social)'s status on Sunday, 18-May-2025 16:02:41 JST Tom Nardi

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt

     @amszmidt
     I don't believe the situation is that simple.

     Currently, libogc is under the zlib license. Which is GPL compatible, but not Copyleft. The inclusion of GPL code means libogc must be distributed under terms of the GPL, which puts more limits on the code than the some contributors may be comfortable with.

     As there is no CLA, and zlib has no sublicense clause, the copyright holder (contributors) should be consulted if the project is going to become governed by a restrictive license.