Enhancement: use xxHash instead of MurmurHash 3

[dumblob]

I remember, that I commented on the hashing algorithm. In the meantime the xxHash matured and while offering the same awesome properties as MurmurHash 3 but with double the speed, I would recommend switching to it. This is though a low-priority ticket.

[jarikomppa]

xxHash has a more restrictive license than nuklear..

[dumblob]

Correct. On the other hand, Nuklear already embeds the ProggyClean font under MIT (which has basically the same restrictions as BSD used by xxHash).

[cbuschardt]

The BSD 2 clause license requires distribution of copyright notice with the binaries. The user has to be able to find a copy of the copyright notice either in the application or accompanying documentation. This is a nightmare for embedded software developers.

Perhaps the author would be willing to relicense without that clause?

    * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
       copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
       in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
       distribution.

[darkuranium]

@dumblob / @cbuschardt: Fair warning, in case the issue Cyan4973/xxHash#91 is accepted — it won't actually help, since the licenses are pretty much equivalent.

@cbuschardt, it also means that Nuklear embedding ProggyClean font under MIT means that one must distribute copyright notices anyways. Here's the relevant portion of MIT (emphasis mine):

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in _all_ copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Perhaps the author of xxHash could be persuaded to use the Boost license (which only needs attribution in sources), but I don't have a solution for the fonts.

[cbuschardt]

@darkuranium Great catch. We are technically not in compliance with the MIT licensed ProggyClean. I don't see any full copies of its license -- merely an abbreviate in the source code including a link to a zip containing said license.

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software

@darkuranium It would be great if we could get ProggyClean to go with the zlib or boost license as well. Regardless, I don't think we can continue to claim that nuklear is Public Domain when it contains MIT licensed components.

[darkuranium]

@cbuschardt: Sadly, you're right.

I've used Nuklear before (so you can imagine my surprise when @dumblob pinged me with a link to this from Cyan4973/xxHash ... small world!), but never noticed the font's licensing — I simply assumed the author had used a PD font for the embedded one (or maybe made his own). Lesson learned, I guess.

Can you try to find the author ProggyClean? In the meantime, I'll try and see if I can't find any CC0-licensed fonts (unlikely, unfortunately, but I'll give it a shot anyways).

It would definitely be better if ProggyClean could relicense, of course — it would keep Nuclear GUIs looking the same throughout versions. _THAT SAID_ I'm not convinced that making ProggyClean Boost would be enough to make Nuklear PD when it's embedded like this. A lawyer would know, but I'm not one. At least it would eliminate the need for binary attribution, though.

I'd avoid zlib licensing, by the way — its wording is legally ambigious.

[cbuschardt]

@darkuranium I'll reach out to the author.

Update: I found an old email address for Tristan Grimmer using Wayback Machine. I've reached out, but apparently the email is no longer valid.

[darkuranium]

@cbuschardt: Bummer about the email.

I've had somewhat more luck, however: fontlibrary has a filter for CC-0 fonts, and there's the M+ fonts — note that the latter are _not_ CC-0, though (but might still be compatible license-wise).

Technically, there's also the Kenney fonts, but those aren't really viable for general UI stuff (as they're designed in a retro style).

[cbuschardt]

This is the entire license text for M+ fonts. The license definitely allows us to re-license as public domain.

"Unlimited permission is granted to use, copy, and distribute them, with or without modification, either commercially or noncommercially. 
THESE FONTS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY. "

[dumblob]

With regards to MIT potentially requiring redistribution of the copyright/license statement with binaries, please see my comment in Cyan4973/xxHash#91 (comment) .

[cbuschardt]

Now that we know xxhash is staying BSD, are we ready to close out this request?

[dumblob]

@cbuschardt not yet, I'm awaiting an aswer from a lawyer with regards to one question regarding CC BY 4.0 (just to state beforehand, most of the claims @darkuranium made in the Cyan4973/xxHash#91 thread with regards to CC are invalid).

[darkuranium]

@dumblob: Which claims? I wasn't talking out of my ass, I was talking out of knowledge. I was wrong in one aspect, namely, CC-BY is GPL-compatible as of 4.0 (and only because they explicitly added a compatibility clause), but the rest was correct.

_Even CreativeCommons themselves recommend against using CC- licenses for software (except CC-0)._

[dumblob]

@darkuranium I'll respond in the thread Cyan4973/xxHash#91 once I received the answer from the lawyer (I want to keep all the important details at one place).