26 Sep
2012
26 Sep
'12
12:36 a.m.
Greetings, all!
I've recently been bitten by the rtlsdr bug and have since developed some
software around it. It's Windows-based and currently decodes (mono) WFM,
NFM, POCSAG, FLEX 1600/6400, and (very limited) AX.25 frames.
I would like to make a semi-limited release but have some concerns about
the licensing of the rtlsdr library after what SDR# went through (or
seemed to go through--I'm not sure what the whole story was). I do plan on
open-sourcing the whole thing eventually, but in the short term I'll
probably have a limited read-only license.
Simply put, am I in the clear if I:
- only access rtlsdr.dll through my own reimplementation of rtl-sdr.h and
rtl-sdr_export.h
- do not distribute the binary rtlsdr.dll, but instead link to the Osmocom
binaries
Thanks for the help!
- Scott
6:30 a.m.
Do you have suggestions, then, as to the approach I should take? I plan on
using a GPL-compatible license eventually, but the code isn't ready for
that yet, and I'd like to head off any licensing issues in advance. What
about interfacing only with ExtIO? So far, I have avoided that option
because I've only had access to rtlsdr devices.
Thanks for any help!
- Scott
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Sylvain Munaut <246tnt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Simply put, am I in the clear if I:
- only access rtlsdr.dll through my own reimplementation of rtl-sdr.h and
rtl-sdr_export.h
- do not distribute the binary rtlsdr.dll, but instead link to the
Osmocom
binaries
Simply put: No.
Cheers,
Sylvain
6:34 a.m.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Scott Cutler <scott(a)scottcutler.net> wrote:
Do you have suggestions, then, as to the approach I
should take? I plan on
using a GPL-compatible license eventually, but the code isn't ready for that
yet, and I'd like to head off any licensing issues in advance. What about
interfacing only with ExtIO? So far, I have avoided that option because
I've only had access to rtlsdr devices.
ExtIO would be acceptable if you don't distribute it bundled with it.
rtl_tcp is the completely isolated way.
Cheers,
Sylvain
PS: Of course this does not constitute legal advice and only represent
my personal opinion and I don't represent all the copyright owners ...
(I mean how could I ? Realtek owns some of the code in there AFAIK
...)
6:41 a.m.
Understood--thanks. I am not looking for legal advice, just reasonable
confidence that I won't be responsible for a "diplomatic incident". I
don't want to make enemies with a simple software release.
- Scott
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Sylvain Munaut <246tnt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Scott Cutler
<scott(a)scottcutler.net>
wrote:
Do you have suggestions, then, as to the approach
I should take? I plan
on
using a GPL-compatible license eventually, but
the code isn't ready for
that
yet, and I'd like to head off any licensing
issues in advance. What
about
interfacing only with ExtIO? So far, I have
avoided that option because
I've only had access to rtlsdr devices.
ExtIO would be acceptable if you don't distribute it bundled with it.
rtl_tcp is the completely isolated way.
Cheers,
Sylvain
PS: Of course this does not constitute legal advice and only represent
my personal opinion and I don't represent all the copyright owners ...
(I mean how could I ? Realtek owns some of the code in there AFAIK
...)
6:40 a.m.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Scott Cutler <scott(a)scottcutler.net> wrote:
Do you have suggestions, then, as to the approach I
should take? I plan on
using a GPL-compatible license eventually, but the code isn't ready for that
yet
Suggestion - don't spend time circumventing the GPL compatibility and
release your code in open-source from the day one. Saved time could
spend to get the software working better.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио
http://fairwaves.ru
7:18 a.m.
I have nothing against the GPL--but to me it represents an unknown that I
would like to get out of the way as early as possible so that I no longer
have to think about it. Although the software will never be commercial, I
may have a future purpose for the software that involves connecting with
closed-source code, and I simply don't know enough about the legal aspects
there. I'd rather err on the side of safety when it comes to licensing.
Part of the reason for developing my own software was to avoid just these
kinds of difficulties.
Also, since ExtIO was on my list of things to support anyway, I may as well
do it sooner rather than later.
At any rate, thanks for the advice.
-Scott
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Alexander Chemeris <
alexander.chemeris(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Scott Cutler
<scott(a)scottcutler.net>
wrote:
Do you have suggestions, then, as to the approach
I should take? I plan
on
using a GPL-compatible license eventually, but
the code isn't ready for
that
yet
Suggestion - don't spend time circumventing the GPL compatibility and
release your code in open-source from the day one. Saved time could
spend to get the software working better.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио
http://fairwaves.ru
10:22 a.m.
Scott,
I’m in the situation where I can’t ship my code because I use commercial libraries which
prevents me from supporting the RTL SDR as I can’t ship these libraries. The only way my
software can support this device is for another developer to write a DLL which conforms to
my own spec. (similar to ExtIO but different).
Simon G4ELI/HB9DRV
http://dit-dit-dit.com
From: osmocom-sdr-bounces(a)lists.osmocom.org [mailto:osmocom-sdr-bounces@lists.osmocom.org]
On Behalf Of Scott Cutler
Although the software will never be commercial, I may have a future purpose for the
software that involves connecting with closed-source code, and I simply don't know
enough about the legal aspects there.
10:29 a.m.
Scott Cutler wrote:
I have nothing against the GPL--but to me it
represents an unknown
Why don't you make it a known?
It's not really difficult to use dual licensing for your software
should you want that at some point.
I may have a future purpose for the software that
involves connecting with
closed-source code, and I simply don't know enough about the legal aspects
there.
So FIND OUT. You can ask license-related questions on the list too.
//Peter
10:45 a.m.
Dual-licensing is an option I've considered. It may work, but I haven't
thought through it fully yet.
The short answer here is that the legal stuff is *unbelievably boring*
to me in comparison to coding, so if I can write 10 hours of code to
save 2 hours of bashing my head against license documents, I will.
The rtl_tcp route sounds valid, and easy, and something I'd want
anyway. I know there was a lot of drama surrounding SDR#, which is
precisely why I came here to clear things up and not repeat the same
mistakes.
So who wants to talk about actual SDR stuff instead? I see on the
Osmocom pages that people already have POCSAG decoding, but FLEX isn't
mentioned (I've only seen closed-source decoders). I have it working
pretty well, both at 1600 and 6400 bps. Amazing how much medical stuff
is being broadcast in the clear...
-Scott
On 9/26/2012 1:29 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Scott Cutler wrote:
I have nothing against the GPL--but to me it
represents an unknown
Why don't you make it a known?
It's not really difficult to use dual licensing for your software
should you want that at some point.
I may have a future purpose for the software that
involves connecting with
closed-source code, and I simply don't know enough about the legal aspects
there.
So FIND OUT. You can ask license-related questions on the list too.
//Peter
10:49 a.m.
Scott Cutler wrote:
The short answer here is that the legal stuff is
*unbelievably boring* to
me in comparison to coding, so if I can write 10 hours of code to save 2
hours of bashing my head against license documents, I will.
The rtl_tcp route sounds valid, and easy, and something I'd want anyway.
The interface clearly goes against the spirit of the license though.
You shouldn't want to use it, if that makes sense.
//Peter
11:06 a.m.
A separate executable, interfaced only over the network, implies pretty
wide separation in my opinion. Web browsers that connect to GPL web
servers aren't obligated to be open.
The reason I'd want it anyway is the network transparency--once I
thought about it some, I really like the idea of setting up 3-4 dongles
in my attic with different antennas. I have a server up there already,
so I wouldn't need to run more wiring.
Look, as I said, I plan on open-sourcing this stuff anyway. I just need
to reserve the possibility of distributing a closed-source personal
branch that's still compatible with rtlsdr, and to possibly have a
temporary period with a more restrictive license, like MS-RSL.
I haven't decided yet, at any rate. It may just remain a personal pet
project if I don't have enough time to spend improving it first.
-Scott
On 9/26/2012 1:49 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Scott Cutler wrote:
The short answer here is that the legal stuff is
*unbelievably boring* to
me in comparison to coding, so if I can write 10 hours of code to save 2
hours of bashing my head against license documents, I will.
The rtl_tcp route sounds valid, and easy, and something I'd want anyway.
The
interface clearly goes against the spirit of the license though.
You shouldn't want to use it, if that makes sense.
//Peter
1:52 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Scott Cutler <scott(a)scottcutler.net> wrote:
Look, as I said, I plan on open-sourcing this stuff
anyway. I just need to
reserve the possibility of distributing a closed-source personal branch
that's still compatible with rtlsdr, and to possibly have a temporary period
with a more restrictive license, like MS-RSL.
Note, that GPL has nothing to do with your personal use. GPL is
triggered only when you convey your software to someone else, either
by publishing on the Internet, or passing a flash drive from hands to
hands. In both (and all other) cases GPL'ed software should be
accompanied with the respective source code. If you do not give the
software to anybody and use it by yourself - you don't have any
obligations about the source code. If you give your software to
someone on a flash drive, you don't need to put the source code on the
Internet, it's fine to put them on the same flash drive. But the
person who received the source code will be free to put the on the
Internet.
This is in short. And surely, this is not a legal advise, etc, etc.
--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио
http://fairwaves.ru
2:56 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Scott Cutler <scott(a)scottcutler.net> wrote:
I have nothing against the GPL--but to me it
represents an unknown that I
would like to get out of the way as early as possible so that I no longer
have to think about it. Although the software will never be commercial, I
may have a future purpose for the software that involves connecting with
closed-source code, and I simply don't know enough about the legal aspects
there. I'd rather err on the side of safety when it comes to licensing.
Part of the reason for developing my own software was to avoid just these
kinds of difficulties.
If you keep the full copyright of the source code (that is, if you are
the main developer and any other co-developers assign the copyright of
their contributions to you), then you can relicense at will the new
future versions of the source code.
However, the best approach would be to get into contact with the SLFC,
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
These licensing issues are their centre of interest, they like these
things and they will help you decide which approach is best.
Some terms that help when communicating with the SFLC are
1. 'free software' is software that abides to the Free Software
definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
Practically, software licensed with the GPL is 'free software'.
2. 'open-source software' is software that make available the source
code but do not fully abide with the Free Software Definition.
Here you have the BSD-style licenses (you can take the source code,
and you are permitted, if you want, to keep private your enhancements
of your product) or the MPL license (the core is like free software,
but it's OK to link with closed-source software).
3. 'copyright', anything you create has your copyright, which by
default gives you exclusive rights to your creation. If you want
others to use your creation, you add a license. Such as one of the
above licenses. The free and open-source licences try to fix the
situation that too few rights were given with proprietary software.
4. The aim of the free software movement is to create an ecosystem of
free software, so that you are not stuck with some proprietary core
component that hijacks the whole software stack. It's a novel aim.
Simos
4240
days inactive
4241
days old
13 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alexander Chemeris -
Peter Stuge -
Scott Cutler -
Simon G4ELI/HB9DRV -
Simos Xenitellis -
Sylvain Munaut