install_name and OS/X

Hi,

Attached is a m4 macro and an example patch to configure.ac to allow
for the customisation of the libraries install name on OS/X.

As you know libtool adds the install name as $rpath/$soname. On OS/X
(and for distribution within Nuke) we would like this to be
@executable_path/$soname (or similar).

Although we can patch OpenEXR (and associated libraries) independently
it would simplify our efforts if integrated in your repository.

The macro patches libtool locally after creation by the configure
script and provides two options: --enable-installname and
--with-installnameprefix. It was tested with OS/X default autotools on
both Tiger and Leopard.

The defaults will keep your existing configuration unaltered.

Cheers,

Goncalo

? IlmBase.pc
? config.guess
? config.sub
? install-sh
? missing
? patch.txt

CTL Licence

Hello,

I am not sure if this is the right mailing list, but I have seen question 
other question around CTL asked on this list.

The current license used by CTL is unfortunately incompatible with GPLv2 
(because of the juridiction clause) and GPLv3 (because of the juridiction and 
the pattent clauses). So, I was wondering if someone knows if there is any 
hope/plan to see CTL to become compatible with GPlv2+ in near future ? (or if 
someone knows who I should ask).

--

-- 
Cyrille Berger

Re: CTL Licence

What do you mean by "incompatible"?

Cyrille Berger wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am not sure if this is the right mailing list, but I have seen question 
> other question around CTL asked on this list.
> 
> The current license used by CTL is unfortunately incompatible with GPLv2 
> (because of the juridiction clause) and GPLv3 (because of the juridiction and 
> the pattent clauses). So, I was wondering if someone knows if there is any 
> hope/plan to see CTL to become compatible with GPlv2+ in near future ? (or if 
> someone knows who I should ask).
> 

Re: CTL Licence

On Wednesday 05 December 2007, you wrote:
> What do you mean by "incompatible"?
I mean GPL project can't be linked with ctl and therefore can't use the ctl 
library.

--

-- 
Cyrille Berger

Re: CTL Licence

Hi,

I'm a bit curious to this too....so here is the top portion of the license:

Copyright © 2007 Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 
(A.M.P.A.S.). Portions contributed by others as indicated. All rights 
reserved.

A worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive right to distribute, copy, 
modify, create derivatives, and use, in source and binary forms, is 
hereby granted, subject to acceptance of this license. Performance of 
any of the aforementioned acts indicates acceptance to be bound by the 
following terms and conditions:

    * Redistributions of source code, in whole or in part, must retain
      the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
      Disclaimer of Warranty.
    * Redistributions in binary form must retain the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the Disclaimer of Warranty in
      the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
      distribution.
    * Nothing in this license shall be deemed to grant any rights to
      trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets or any other
      intellectual property of A.M.P.A.S. or any contributors, except as
      expressly stated herein. Neither the name "A.M.P.A.S." nor the
      name of any other contributors to this software may be used to
      endorse or promote products derivative of or based on this
      software without express prior written permission of A.M.P.A.S. or
      the contributors, as appropriate.
    * This license shall be construed pursuant to the laws of the State

Re: CTL Licence

Hai Nguyen <hai.scrub <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Which clause in the license are you referring to that makes it
> incompatible?

I doubt that anyone on the list is qualified to say definitively
whether the CTL license is compatible with the GPL, unless we have
some copyright lawyers lurking about.

The FSF will evaluate software licenses for no charge if you ask them.
Best just to send a request to licensing <at> fsf.org and ask them to vet
the CTL license.

d

_______________________________________________
Openexr-devel mailing list
Openexr-devel <at> nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel

Re: CTL Licence

On Wednesday 05 December 2007, Drew Hess wrote:
> The FSF will evaluate software licenses for no charge if you ask them.
> Best just to send a request to licensing <at> fsf.org and ask them to vet
> the CTL license.

The FSF has already evaluated this license, found it incompatible because of 
the jurisdiction clause and on that ground refused CTL hosting in savannah: 
http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?6171.

--

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt 
http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi

Re: CTL Licence

I was merely just asking a direct question out of curiosity to see if 
any of the verbiage implies something
one way or another - not if a definitively yes/no compatibility.

Regardless, based on the initial post of this thread, the agreement of 
compatibility seems a bit backwards.
It seems to me that the GPL is not compatible with the CTL, not the 
other way around.

Just my 2 cents.

Drew Hess wrote:
> Hai Nguyen <hai.scrub <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>   
>> Which clause in the license are you referring to that makes it
>> incompatible?
>>     
>
>
> I doubt that anyone on the list is qualified to say definitively
> whether the CTL license is compatible with the GPL, unless we have
> some copyright lawyers lurking about.
>
> The FSF will evaluate software licenses for no charge if you ask them.
> Best just to send a request to licensing <at> fsf.org and ask them to vet
> the CTL license.
>
> d
>   

Re: CTL Licence

Can you be more specific?
Why can't your project be linked with CTL?

Cyrille Berger wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 December 2007, you wrote:
>>What do you mean by "incompatible"?
> I mean GPL project can't be linked with ctl and therefore can't use the ctl 
> library.
> 

Re: CTL Licence

Hi,

On Wednesday 05 December 2007, Hai Nguyen wrote:
>
> I'm a bit curious to this too....so here is the top portion of the license:
>
> Copyright © 2007 Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
> (A.M.P.A.S.). Portions contributed by others as indicated. All rights
> reserved.
>
> A worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive right to distribute, copy,
> modify, create derivatives, and use, in source and binary forms, is
> hereby granted, subject to acceptance of this license. Performance of
> any of the aforementioned acts indicates acceptance to be bound by the
> following terms and conditions:
>
>     * Redistributions of source code, in whole or in part, must retain
>       the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
>       Disclaimer of Warranty.
>     * Redistributions in binary form must retain the above copyright
>       notice, this list of conditions and the Disclaimer of Warranty in
>       the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>       distribution.
>     * Nothing in this license shall be deemed to grant any rights to
>       trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets or any other
>       intellectual property of A.M.P.A.S. or any contributors, except as
>       expressly stated herein. Neither the name "A.M.P.A.S." nor the
>       name of any other contributors to this software may be used to
>       endorse or promote products derivative of or based on this
>       software without express prior written permission of A.M.P.A.S. or