bsd license

[3rdshiftcoder]

hi -

i am checking out tcl/tk again because the licenses for tcl
may be easier for me to understand then the ones in java
(i hope).

can someone please help explain these quick questions?

This condition starts off with "binary":
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright...

can someone explain really quick what binary might mean in tcl/tk?
in java source would mean *.java and binary might be *.class

if i used the new spectcl or tkproE should i still release the source
files or will bwidget, itcl, tktable etc. be in binary because i used
a gui builder?

This condition uses the word "derived":
Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
* names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.

so if i used a gui builder tool and one of the widgets i used in my project
was bwidget, did i derive anything by doing that?
from what i remember from a while ago i may write code in a .tcl source
file but i am not advanced enough to modify bwidget
code directly.

thanks for any help.

i am collecting some information on licenses so i can distribute my
software on the web and i dont get into trouble.
have a nice weekend,
jim

[sleb...@gmail.com]

On May 4, 2:22 pm, "3rdshiftcoder" <g...@away.com> wrote:
> hi -
>
> i am checking out tcl/tk again because the licenses for tcl
> may be easier for me to understand then the ones in java
> (i hope).
>
> can someone please help explain these quick questions?
>
> This condition starts off with "binary":
> Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright...
>
> can someone explain really quick what binary might mean in tcl/tk?
> in java source would mean *.java and binary might be *.class

The Tcl license only talks about Tcl, not third party tcl scripts. In
the context of the license "binary" means tclsh.exe, wish.exe,
tcl84.dll etc. In java the "binary" talked about in tcl license would
mean java.exe and java.dll. Also, in this context "source" means *.c,
*.h and *.tcl (but only tcl scripts that comes with the Tcl sources).

The license explicitly states that third party tcl scripts are exempt
from the license and may implement whatever license the author wants.
I'm not so sure about binary extensions though since you'll be
#including tcl headers.

> if i used the new spectcl or tkproE should i still release the source
> files or will bwidget, itcl, tktable etc. be in binary because i used
> a gui builder?

Having said that, most third party tcl code and extensions like
bwidget, itcl and tktable are themselves licensed in a tcl compatible
way: using the BSD license. Although you do have to read the
individual license to make sure since I have seen GPL and LGPL tcl
code in the wild.

> This condition uses the word "derived":
> Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
> * names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
> * derived from this software without specific prior written
> permission.
>
> so if i used a gui builder tool and one of the widgets i used in my project
> was bwidget, did i derive anything by doing that?
> from what i remember from a while ago i may write code in a .tcl source
> file but i am not advanced enough to modify bwidget
> code directly.

I'd say you most probably not need to worry about your gui builder
tool and definitely not need to worry about Tcl and Tk's own license.
But you do need to conform to the requirements of bwidget's license.

[Donal K. Fellows]

sleb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The license explicitly states that third party tcl scripts are exempt
> from the license and may implement whatever license the author wants.
> I'm not so sure about binary extensions though since you'll be
> #including tcl headers.

The contents of tcl.h and its related header files constitute the (C
language) API to Tcl, and it is likely that just including them does not
make the overall work (the binary extension) a derived work in the
copyright sense. But whether or not it does so from a legal perspective,
we (the Tcl community) want to enable the distribution of your extension
packages under any license you like; it's your code after all. We
encourage the use of an open license, but it's not our code or our call.
If you're distributing the Tcl source code, that's a bit different; we
insist that the Tcl source code _itself_ (including the particular
representation of the tcl.h file itself) remains BSD-licensed. Why you
would want to include that with your package, I've no idea. :-)

In short, we won't send the stormtroopers in black helicopters in unless
you do something truly scummy. Making and distributing your own binary
extension packages (whatever reasonable license, including common
commercial and GPL) is not scummy; it takes your own work to do. :-)

Donal.

[3rdshiftcoder]

hi -

thanks Donal and slebetman -
your advice really helps.
i will add this to my small
list of documentation regarding
licenses.
it does seem easier than java.

thanks again,
jim