But is that really different from any other case where an open-source
program is compiled against proprietary headers or linked against
proprietary libraries?
The open source case is governed by the same standard pieces of law
on derivative works. If you create something from multiple licensed works
the resulting thing is subject to all the licenses simultaneously. If
they conflict then tough, you can't carry out any action that would
require permission (eg most copying).
So you can probably mix Occulus stuff with BSD licensed code except that
their restrictions clause is so vague who can really tell. Typical
proprietary licensing: the true goals are a) make sure you can never sue
them and b) make sure they can always find a way to sue you if there is
every a dispute.
It works both ways. You can't subject Occulus to the GPL and you can't
subject GPL or any other copyleft code to Occulus restrictions. Given
their vague terms I have a feeling you can't actually use the occulus
code safely for anything. If you ship it in the US then presumably the
"no shipping to Iran" restriction gets attached to their code, if you
ship it into the EU then EU law on disassembly would presumaly be "other
restrctions" and so on. Definitely needs a lawyer to tell you what is and
isn't meant by that.
The other aspect of the law on derivative works is that there are (often
very unclear) lines on what is derivative. So for example if you combine
OpenSCAD with Occulus you'll have a problem but if you were running
OpenSCAD, saving the resulting render and then reading it into your
viewer app you would almost certainly not be.
There appear to be a fair number of VR projects with "Open" in their
names, including some with ties to Oculus. For instance, there's
Open in project names is generally the same as "Democratic" in country
names 8)
Alan
> But is that really different from any other case where an open-source
> program is compiled against proprietary headers or linked against
> proprietary libraries?
The open source case is governed by the same standard pieces of law
on derivative works. If you create something from multiple licensed works
the resulting thing is subject to all the licenses simultaneously. If
they conflict then tough, you can't carry out any action that would
require permission (eg most copying).
So you can probably mix Occulus stuff with BSD licensed code except that
their restrictions clause is so vague who can really tell. Typical
proprietary licensing: the true goals are a) make sure you can never sue
them and b) make sure they can always find a way to sue you if there is
every a dispute.
It works both ways. You can't subject Occulus to the GPL and you can't
subject GPL or any other copyleft code to Occulus restrictions. Given
their vague terms I have a feeling you can't actually use the occulus
code safely for anything. If you ship it in the US then presumably the
"no shipping to Iran" restriction gets attached to their code, if you
ship it into the EU then EU law on disassembly would presumaly be "other
restrctions" and so on. Definitely needs a lawyer to tell you what is and
isn't meant by that.
The other aspect of the law on derivative works is that there are (often
very unclear) lines on what is derivative. So for example if you combine
OpenSCAD with Occulus you'll have a problem but if you were running
OpenSCAD, saving the resulting render and then reading it into your
viewer app you would almost certainly not be.
> There appear to be a fair number of VR projects with "Open" in their
> names, including some with ties to Oculus. For instance, there's
Open in project names is generally the same as "Democratic" in country
names 8)
Alan
