Dave Hall wrote: > Hi all, > > Let me start this by saying IANAL, but ... :) > > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 18:36 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote: >> Benoit Hamet wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Sorry to jump into this, but : >>> >>> Sigurd Nes a écrit : >>>>> From: Dave Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: 2008-03-04 15:02:00 CET >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 14:30 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote: >>>>>>> From: Dave Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> Sent: 2008-03-04 13:39:41 CET >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 10:56 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote: >>>>>>>> I'm happy with the team - it's just that sometimes I could wish I had >>>>>>>> a vote in decision processes rather than being told afterwards that >>>>>>>> some policy >>>>>>>> has changed. >>>>>>> I am not sure which policies you are referring to. The policies of the >>>>>>> project and release goals for 0.9.18 haven't really changed for a long >>>>>>> time. >>>>>> Well - how about licensing GPLv2 vs. GPLv3. (or what about AGPL?) >>>>> GPLv3 is a requirement of being a GNU package and was discussed here >>>>> back in July last year. The AGPL is a great license for something like >>>>> phpgw, but without rewriting large chunks of code we can't use it. >>>> Could we have things like that in the Developers Guide ? >>> I'm not sure to understand what you mean here ... "things like that" is >>> for the fact that being a GNU package has some well known constraints >>> (and lot's advantages IMHO), or that if you want to put some pieces of >>> code under another Licence than the official one it should be GPLv3 >>> Compliant ? Or another thing ? >>> >> I'm thinking on rules for how to play in general. >> >> For the xGPL - as I understand it - the <quote>either version 2 of the >> License, >> or (at your option) any later version</quote> is GPLv3 compliant. > > No, that allows someone to relicense GPLv2 code as GPLv3, but doesn't > make that code automatically GPLv3 licensed. Also the GPLv2 and v3 are > not compatiable. We can not distribute code which is a mix of L/GPLv2 > and L/GPLv3. As agreed here and with the FSF we will be moving to > L/GPLv3 for the 0.9.18 release. All new checkins should contain proper > phpdoc headers with L/GPLv3 licensing > > >> -Also (still my perception): The rationale behind LGPL, is that where there >> are >> alternative libraries available for the proprietary software - it is >> desirable >> that it is the GNU version that is preferred, and LGPL will allow the >> proprietary software to link to it. >> However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, releasing >> it >> under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs is preferred to promote >> the >> GNU variant. >> >> As I understand it - one can use all variants of the xGPL - not having to >> choose >> only one. > > You can combine all 3 licenses in 1 piece of work, but it is best to > have clear delineation between which license applies to which parts of > code. If you wish to relicense a module AGPL, the following process > will apply: > > * Conduct a code audit to ensure that _all_ code to be relicensed is > covered by a FSF copyright assignment > > * Email here with the code audit info, listing who wrote each file - no > matter how small. We need this to ensure that the code can be > relicensed. > > * As the GNU package maintainer I will contact the FSF and discuss a > relicensing, this must be done as the FSF holds the copyright over the > code. > > I don't think that having some modules GPL and some AGPL adds much to > the project, and probably adds to confusion and administrative overhead. > > I don't support a wholesale relicensing of phpgw as AGPL, as it would > create too much work in terms of code audits and rewriting code, and > provide very little benefit. > >> My personal opinion is that the GPL could be replaced with AGPL wherever it >> is >> used - while LGPL has to stay as is (if appropriate for linking with other >> parties). > > The linking is an interesting issue, but I think these days we could use > GPL for the API too, but I am not going to push for that. We already > have some GPL code in the API. > > I think that licensing discussions can get bogged down very quickly > provide little benefit. I think we should be focused on a L/GPLv3 > 0.9.18 release. >
By all means - I'm not pursuing this - the point was to show that the Developers Guide could be more informative - and could/should be updated when long-standing policies are settled. Regards Sigurd _______________________________________________ phpGroupWare-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
