Migrate from Tmds.DBus to Tmds.DBus.Protocol.

[tmds]

The Protocol library uses compile-time instead of run-time code generation.

[JGCarroll]

Not my place really to make decisions really, but I think the LGPL copyright in the Portal definitions might need a bit of thought about the legalities at least to the extent it's shown we've acknowledged it.

Pinta is MIT and the combination of MIT and LGPL can work fine, but depending how lawyers interpret linking & etc (and I'm not super sure on the technicals with .NET here either), it could potentially make the overall package LGPL.

Of course technically, the previous approach running codegen on the Portal definitions could be argued to have already constituted a derivative work, in which case, perhaps they should have already been considered LGPL and nothings actually changed and the new implementation would correct the mislabelling.

But perhaps ultimately in both cases it's perhaps inappropriate for those XML files to be considered copyrightable in the first place because the definition of the interfaces wouldn't satisfy the merger doctrine and aren't sufficiently "creative" works, a Clean Room implementation would just end up with basically the same files.

I don't think there's a deep problem fundamentally here but it's one worth thinking about at least.

[tmds]

@JGCarroll I think it should be fine to include those, but to avoid any doubt I've replaced them.

[JGCarroll]

Thanks, looks good my end and thanks for your library 😁

I was trying to do some legal review on including the original upstream files, and although I'm not a lawyer , I think the general opinion of US law and EU directives/UK law is that by virtue of being an interface where there's no real scope to modify the definition without breaking it, copyright/ownership in the traditional sense wouldn't apply to the latest commit with the comments ripped out. The comments themselves from the original would still potentially classify as copyrightable material because they would be a clear creative and original work, but now can be ignored.

So I expect legally we're all good and ethically you've linked back to the original works anyway who I expect wouldn't mind in this instance since the whole point of making those Portals is to get them used. The other options would have essentially been include the original files in full and claim the compiler strips out the comments whilst the XML parts aren't applicable, or just include the original and stripped versions in the repo which is basically what the link does anyway.