Licensing question about the compiler

[Петър Петров]

While developing my IDE a question about haxe compiler license occurred.

My situation is as follows: I am writing an IDE.  When the user clicks "Run", the IDE calls the compiler to compile the application that user writes. Just as expected.

The IDE's only language is haxe, this is exclusively an haxe IDE.

The IDE is using the compiler. The compiler is NOT modified and I will never modify the compiler itself - I like it as is. I even didn't compiled it from source.

Also, in the site, here: http://haxe.org/doc/license

There is the following clause:

The license of the compiler does not affect the license of your own source code. If you use Haxe and the Haxe compiler it is not required that you release your work under a free open source software license.

This clause I can interpret in two very dirrerent ways:

Interpretation 1: The license of the compiler does not affect the license of your own IDE source code. If you use Haxe and the Haxe compiler it is not required that you release your work (Your IDE) under a free open source software license.

So "your own source code" points to "Your IDE's source code" - so My IDE can be proprietary and can use haxe to compile projects.

Interpretation 2: The license of the compiler does not affect the license of your own source code you write in Haxe and compile with this compiler. If you use Haxe and the Haxe compiler it is not required that you release your work you written in Haxe and compiled with this compiler under a free open source software license.

So "your own source code" points to code you write in Haxe and use the Haxe compiler to compile it (In this case, the code that I write is just data, so it is my own IP, according to GPL!)

Which is correct? Both? Only second?

Does my IDE must fall under GPL if it uses the compiler? 

Can I redistribute official binaries of the compiler with my IDE, and if can't, can I just opt user to download them?

What will be the best way to avoid falling under GPL?

[j...@justinfront.net]

> Петър Петров

Can't talk officially but here's my opinion..

> can I just opt user to download them?

Yes you could setup an auto download based on a tick box, this is
probably the best option, since it allows you to properly credit Haxe
and to keep a clear distinction between Haxe compiler and your
product, it provides the best clarity for you AND for Haxe, also the
user may want to use the NME version so choice here is good.

There are lots of places you can research these common opensource
license to understand implications eg:
https://blogs.oracle.com/davidleetodd/entry/free_and_open_source_license

If you consider Haxe / Neko compiler installation as you would xcode
or Java installation then it's really not complex I think your
probably over thinking it. Obviously if you want to try to setup
another install process then maybe talk to Haxe Foundation, I would
suggest emailing silexlabs.org who are involved in the Haxe Foundation
setup ( can't seem to get their site up at the moment? ) as I expect
Nicolas may prefer to remain focused on the compiler, or atleast we
all want him to focus mostly on the compiler :).

Best

Justin

[Петър Петров]

Of course, by default I will make it very clear about the haxe compiler. 

The IDE itself will be usable as a modding tool without the haxe compiler. 

But the haxe compiler is required part if the user decide to write own object classes and game logic/code.

Also I have fears from depending on GPL code not written by me and collegues. 

At the end, the IDE will be dual licensed - over GPL and over a commercial license (like Qt). 

(The IDE! Not its compiler, of course. Commercial version will only add new features to the IDE itself.)

However, I must be sure that I won't have problems with the commercial version. 

Haxe is good enough and seeing it in AAA quality games will be the best advertisement for haxe.

[j...@justinfront.net]

Петър Петров

On this point:

However, I must be sure that I won't have problems with the commercial version. 

I see no conflict, for instance code editors like FDT and Intellij are already providing commercial products and trading upon their support for Haxe language.

I was not sure if you were making another point regarding a non commercial version and a modified haxe compiler?

Best 

Justin

On 26 Oct 2012, at 02:13,  wrote:

Of course, by default I will make it very clear about the haxe compiler. 

The IDE itself will be usable as a modding tool without the haxe compiler. 

But the haxe compiler is required part if the user decide to write own object classes and game logic/code.

Also I have fears from depending on GPL code not written by me and collegues. 

At the end, the IDE will be dual licensed - over GPL and over a commercial license (like Qt). 

(The IDE! Not its compiler, of course. Commercial version will only add new features to the IDE itself.)

Haxe is good enough and seeing it in AAA quality games will be the best advertisement for haxe.

26 октомври 2012, петък, 03:58:09 UTC+3, JLM написа:

> Петър Петров

Can't talk officially but here's my opinion..

> can I just opt user to download them?

Yes you could setup an auto download based on a tick box, this is  
probably the best option, since it allows you to properly credit Haxe  
and to keep a clear distinction between Haxe compiler and your  
product, it provides the best clarity for you AND for Haxe, also the  
user may want to use the NME version so choice here is good.

There are lots of places you can research these common opensource  
license to understand implications eg:
https://blogs.oracle.com/davidleetodd/entry/free_and_open_source_license

If you consider Haxe / Neko compiler installation as you would xcode  
or Java installation then it's really not complex I think your  
probably over thinking it.  Obviously if you want to try to setup  
another install process then maybe talk to Haxe Foundation, I would  
suggest emailing silexlabs.org who are involved in the Haxe Foundation  
setup ( can't seem to get their site up at the moment? ) as I expect  
Nicolas may prefer to remain focused on the compiler, or atleast we  
all want him to focus mostly on the compiler :).

Best

Justin

--
To post to this group haxe...@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/haxelang?hl=en
 
 
 

[Петър Петров]

I will never modify the haxe compiler. I like it as is! 

I even will never try to compile it from its source as I like it as is. 

Even in our GPL version, the compiler is whatever it is - downloaded and installed on the target mashine - either as part of the IDE installation, or when the user tries to run its first application. It will be prompted to download Haxe compiler (and Microsoft Visual Studio Express as well).

[Nicolas Cannasse]

Le 25/10/2012 23:35, Петър Петров a écrit :
> While developing my IDE a question about haxe compiler license occurred.
>
> My situation is as follows: I am writing an IDE. When the user clicks
> "Run", the IDE calls the compiler to compile the application that user
> writes. Just as expected.
> The IDE's only language is haxe, this is exclusively an haxe IDE.
>

> The IDE is using the compiler. _The compiler is NOT modified and I will
> never modify the compiler itself - I like it as is._ I even didn't
> compiled it from source.

Hi,

The compiler is released under the GPL license, which is viral for
"derivative works". For instance if you make a compiler front-end and
repackage it to sell it, you can perfectly do this but you will also
have to publish your changes as GPL.

Now, we cannot consider an IDE to be a "derivative works". It's a tool
in-itself that simply call the compiler like it would do for any other
commandline utility. So the GPL does not apply to your IDE.

You should however considering open sourcing a part it, while still
keeping a commercial binaries with maybe more advanced features, in
order to get help from the community in terms of bug
reports/patches/improvements.

Looking forward to it anyway, I think that a crossplatform
Haxe-specialized IDE - if well made, and this require a lot of work -
could be something very interesting.

Best,
Nicolas

[dlots]

Might want to change it to the LGPL. I believe a lot of folks, in recent years, have switched to classifying linked software as derivative works with the GPL. I don't think that has been litigated to decision in the United States though. Not sure what the consensus is, but I've definitely read some people take that interpretation, including possibly Stallman.

[PeterSvP]

GPL is as I call it - encrypted. Everybody non-lawyer treats it differently. And this is an issue. For example, my IDE, again. The open source version that I will release under GPL must be friendly to third party plugins despite their license. So somebody can write proprietary plugin. And here, even if GPL, in this particular situation, a plugin, I want to allow them to link their plugins to my IDE. Now I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how to add exception clauses to GPL itself. And that is why when I have questions about GPL software being used by another application, I usually contact its author.

And thanks to Nicolas for the answer. I hope we will see haxe being used into AAA games someday :)

[Luca]

'Linking' with GPL software requires your software to be GPL. But just calling it does not.

LGPL weakens GPL by permitting linking, but an IDE doesn't link, it just calls.