On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 23:01 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote: > 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.
It would require us having a developer guide :) Cheers Dave _______________________________________________ phpGroupWare-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
