Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit licensing and LGPLv3
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 01:51, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > 1) We will continue to accept only code that's licensed under a BSD- > style (no advertising clause) license, or LGPL 2.1, or other > compatible license. We don't want to accept code that's LGPL 3 only, > as that would make the whole project LGPL 3. > I think continuing to require "LGPL 2 or later" would be the most sane and most compatible. > 2) We'd like to change the copyright notices from their current mix of > "LGPL 2 or any later version" and "LGPL 2.1 or any later version" to > just LGPL 2.1, to make this clear. This one is maybe more debatable, > so I'd like to know if anyone objects. It would prevent incorporating > WebKit code into LGPL 3 projects, and would require sign-off from all > copyright holders to ever change to a different LGPL version in the > future (in case the FSF came out with a version 3.1 or 4 that solved > some of the problems with v3). > I object. I would like to reserve the right to integrate WebKit with LGPL 3 projects like future KDE libs. Though since we are talking LGPL the linking-issues are not that problematic, it would still make it easier if the project continued to include the "or later" clause. Regards `Allan ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit licensing and LGPLv3
Hi Maciej, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: 1) We will continue to accept only code that's licensed under a BSD-style (no advertising clause) license, or LGPL 2.1, or other compatible license. We don't want to accept code that's LGPL 3 only, as that would make the whole project LGPL 3. As I understand it, yes (standard IANAL disclaimer here). I have no objects with this. 2) We'd like to change the copyright notices from their current mix of "LGPL 2 or any later version" and "LGPL 2.1 or any later version" to just LGPL 2.1, to make this clear. This one is maybe more debatable, so I'd like to know if anyone objects. It would prevent incorporating WebKit code into LGPL 3 projects, and would require sign-off from all copyright holders to ever change to a different LGPL version in the future (in case the FSF came out with a version 3.1 or 4 that solved some of the problems with v3). I think sticking with "LGPL 2 or any later version" might be best for now. The reason I say this is it puts fewer limits on what GPL projects WebKit, or parts of WebKit (I suppose), can be incorporated into. Personally, I am not a big fan of (L)GPL v3 (although, I have not really followed it since the first draft), but I still think that it is good to be as less restrictive as possible, in certain senses. -Donald Kirker ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit licensing and LGPLv3
On Wednesday 25 July 2007, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > On Wednesday 25 July 2007 01:51, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > 1) We will continue to accept only code that's licensed under a BSD- > > style (no advertising clause) license, or LGPL 2.1, or other > > compatible license. We don't want to accept code that's LGPL 3 only, > > as that would make the whole project LGPL 3. > > I think continuing to require "LGPL 2 or later" would be the most sane and > most compatible. Accepting LGPL 3 only code is not something we should do, as it would lead to more restrict licensing terms than we currently have. > > 2) We'd like to change the copyright notices from their current mix of > > "LGPL 2 or any later version" and "LGPL 2.1 or any later version" to > > just LGPL 2.1, to make this clear. This one is maybe more debatable, > > so I'd like to know if anyone objects. It would prevent incorporating > > WebKit code into LGPL 3 projects, and would require sign-off from all > > copyright holders to ever change to a different LGPL version in the > > future (in case the FSF came out with a version 3.1 or 4 that solved > > some of the problems with v3). > > I object. I would like to reserve the right to integrate WebKit with LGPL 3 > projects like future KDE libs. > > Though since we are talking LGPL the linking-issues are not that > problematic, it would still make it easier if the project continued to > include the "or later" clause. I have to agree with Allan. Restricting it to 2.1 only might give open source projects (KDE being one of them) problems in the future. I don't see a need to change the license to become more restrictive than it has been in the past. As a sidenote, since we're already talking about licensing: I don't quite see the benefits of having a mix of BSD and LGPL licenses. LGPL is more restrictive, so that one applies to the project as a whole anyways. Wouldn't it be easier to just have one license (LGPL 2.1 or later) for the complete code base? Cheers, Lars ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit licensing and LGPLv3
Hi Allan, I've forwarded your comments and those of others internally at Apple. I won't do #2 for moment. I'd still appreciate any other input on this point. Regards, Maciej On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:05 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: On Wednesday 25 July 2007 01:51, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: 1) We will continue to accept only code that's licensed under a BSD- style (no advertising clause) license, or LGPL 2.1, or other compatible license. We don't want to accept code that's LGPL 3 only, as that would make the whole project LGPL 3. I think continuing to require "LGPL 2 or later" would be the most sane and most compatible. 2) We'd like to change the copyright notices from their current mix of "LGPL 2 or any later version" and "LGPL 2.1 or any later version" to just LGPL 2.1, to make this clear. This one is maybe more debatable, so I'd like to know if anyone objects. It would prevent incorporating WebKit code into LGPL 3 projects, and would require sign-off from all copyright holders to ever change to a different LGPL version in the future (in case the FSF came out with a version 3.1 or 4 that solved some of the problems with v3). I object. I would like to reserve the right to integrate WebKit with LGPL 3 projects like future KDE libs. Though since we are talking LGPL the linking-issues are not that problematic, it would still make it easier if the project continued to include the "or later" clause. Regards `Allan ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit licensing and LGPLv3
Hi Lars, On Jul 25, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Lars Knoll wrot As a sidenote, since we're already talking about licensing: I don't quite see the benefits of having a mix of BSD and LGPL licenses. LGPL is more restrictive, so that one applies to the project as a whole anyways. Wouldn't it be easier to just have one license (LGPL 2.1 or later) for the complete code base? We mostly put the BSD license on files that were originally developed primarily by Apple for two reasons: 1) To still potentially allow reuse of that code in other internal Apple projects, even if a non-Apple employee makes a small change to that particular file. As code gets mixed between files, there might be less and less of such code over time, though. 2) For the WebKit ObjC API code specifically, to avoid subjecting apps that link to WebKit only, but not to WebCore or JavaScriptCore directly, to the LGPL reverse engineering clause. As you say, it does not make a huge difference for the project overall, so I think we should continue to allow contributors to contribute new code under the BSD license. Regards, Maciej ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit licensing and LGPLv3
On Jul 24, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: Hi Everyone, With the release of GPLv3 and LGPLv3, I'd like to take a moment to discuss WebKit licensing. LGPLv3 includes some restrictions beyond the previous version that make it difficult to accept for many key contributors and users of WebKit, including Apple. Given this, we'd like to keep the project at LGPL 2.1, to make sure it can be used in all the ways it is used today. To that end we'd like to do two things: 1) We will continue to accept only code that's licensed under a BSD- style (no advertising clause) license, or LGPL 2.1, or other compatible license. We don't want to accept code that's LGPL 3 only, as that would make the whole project LGPL 3. Sounds good to me. I'd prefer BSD-style licensing whenever possible. 2) We'd like to change the copyright notices from their current mix of "LGPL 2 or any later version" and "LGPL 2.1 or any later version" to just LGPL 2.1, to make this clear. This one is maybe more debatable, so I'd like to know if anyone objects. It would prevent incorporating WebKit code into LGPL 3 projects, and would require sign-off from all copyright holders to ever change to a different LGPL version in the future (in case the FSF came out with a version 3.1 or 4 that solved some of the problems with v3). Does not matter to me as long as I can continue to use the version of the LGPL I am using today. Chris ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
