Yet another license question

[Manuel]

if the upstream project violates a patent my interpretation of the GPL3 is that it makes me responsible for any damages.

I think this interpretation is wrong.
In any case you are ALWAYS responsible of the code you write, with any license, if you are the copyright holder.

[ppClarity]

if the upstream project violates a patent my interpretation of the GPL3 is that it makes me responsible for any damages.

I think this interpretation is wrong.
In any case you are ALWAYS responsible of the code you write, with any license, if you are the copyright holder.

Oops, muddied the point.

My interpretation (right or wrong) is that under the GPL3 I have to certify that I have a legitimate license to any patented technology used by the product and that license allows me to sublicense it freely. Because I have to provide that certification even if the upstream project is the infringer I have effectively indemnified them even if my code has nothing to do with the area under contention. This is admittedly weak, but the US's patent regime is such a mess that assuming I'm wrong would be financially irresponsible.

Torvalds himself has pretty much called the GPL3 agendaware for similar reasons. As long as it doesn't impose restrictions on the output (eg. gcc), I can tolerate it as an end-user license.

[mflerackers]

Actually whether you use GPL, GPL2, GPL3, BSD, MPL, APSL, ASL or public domain code. It is always you who is responsible for patent licenses. There is no non commercial license that indemnifies you from any patent claims.

[ppClarity]

Here's an interesting aside. Depending on how proxy meshes work, somebody can supply their own textures and high and low-poly proxy meshes and not have to worry about the GPL3.

[sonerd]

- default: GPL for all
- if requested: special license for commercial usage

I like his idea, and probably this will be the final way, when MH turn in beta.

May I ask why do you think the GPL protects MH more than MIT/BSD?

- If it's for giving you credit, I believe BSD protects you the same: If somebody uses any part (or derivative) of MH without giving credit to the authors, this is protected by the MIT/BSD license.

- If it's for money, well, it cannot be unless you plan getting $$$ income from commercial licenses, in parallel with the GPL license for open source users (like some companies do).

- If it's because you think it's unfair for a third party to make money from a MH-derived work, I think it would be worse that such third-party chooses another product instead of MH. I mean, if I develop a revolutionary imaging lib, I'd prefer to see my lib credited in Adobe Photoshop, which wouldn't be possible if I license it as GPL.

I see it this way: If you're afraid a thirdparty could make money from a MH clone if you licensed it as BSD, you must consider they cannot do that unless they credit the MH authors. And, if such thirdparty doesn't give you credit, then I'm afraid that if they are willing to violate the BSD license, they'll be happy to violate the GPL license as well (and, BTW, I believe there're already some cases of commercial tools using GPLed code illegally...)

So, well... I don't know in which ways do you think the GPL gives you more protection.

[Manuel]

- If it's because you think it's unfair for a third party to make money from a MH-derived work, I think it would be worse that such third-party chooses another product instead of MH. I mean, if I develop a revolutionary imaging lib, I'd prefer to see my lib credited in Adobe Photoshop, which wouldn't be possible if I license it as GPL.

This is the point. MH is not a lib.
A lib is happy to be part of a commercial project.
On the contrary, an application is not happy to be cloned.

I see it this way: If you're afraid a thirdparty could make money from a MH clone if you licensed it as BSD, you must consider they cannot do that unless they credit the MH authors. And, if such thirdparty doesn't give you credit, then I'm afraid that if they are willing to violate the BSD license, they'll be happy to violate the GPL license as well (and, BTW, I believe there're already some cases of commercial tools using GPLed code illegally...)

Yes, they can write a small, almost invisible note where they thanks us, and in meantime sell our product with some little improvements, their company name, and make money with the hard work of MHteam.

[sonerd]

This is the point. MH is not a lib.
A lib is happy to be part of a commercial project.
On the contrary, an application is not happy to be cloned.

I suppose you really want to do an application, and only an application. If that's not the case, let me say some parts of MH could be also distributed as libs, because there's demand for such technology. Just search for open-source libs capable of doing posing and morphing of characters, and you'll see Cal3D (whose development seems to be stalled since 2007 or even earlier), and very little more. So, I believe there would be demand for that.

Regarding the wish of MH not being cloned, I tend to believe it would be better to have an special license for games/simulators developers (something similar to DAZ) rather than the suggested case-by-case approval procedure. I remember now some old code whose use required case-by-case approval, and it has become a lost opportunity, because when the "commitee" who verifies the license request stops their activity, there's no way for more people to use the code.