Re: (L)GPLv3
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 21:58 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > hi Vincent, > > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not > > sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the > > FSF; that's a major issue, and, IMHO, this doesn't go well with our > > philosophy of having our platform LGPL. > > Just a note: the LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2 not because of the > LGPLv3 but because of the GPLv2 (which is incompatible with almost > everything). I'm not sure this should be counted as a point against > LGPLv3, in general. Sure. But the point is that there are GPLv2-only apps out there, and I don't think we want to give them a platform they can't use -- the reason we chose LGPL for the platform was that we wanted people to be able to use our platform in many cases, including this one. Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our platform but not GPLv2 apps? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
hi Vincent, On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our > platform but not GPLv2 apps? In short, yes. Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to relicense has made a significant mistake. I don't want to punish them or anything, but they are the ones who picked a licence that prevents them from linking against just about anything. Cheers ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
Hi! > hi Vincent, > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: >> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our >> platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > In short, yes. > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to > relicense has made a significant mistake. I don't want to punish them > or anything, but they are the ones who picked a licence that prevents > them from linking against just about anything. Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to GPLv3? Also, am I right that GPLv2+ means that I have GPLv2 in the COPYING but every file include the "or (at your option) any later version" clause? Regards, Johannes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote: > Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still > prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to > GPLv3? No. At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't mean that you have to change the licence of existing code -- you just keep it "v2 or higher". > Also, am I right that GPLv2+ means that I have GPLv2 in the COPYING but > every file include the "or (at your option) any later version" clause? That's pretty much the view of most people, yes -- and certainly the common practice. Cheers ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:26 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote: > > Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still > > prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to > > GPLv3? > > No. > > At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it > would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the > GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't > mean that you have to change the licence of existing code -- you just > keep it "v2 or higher". Just to help everyone get a clear view for those questions: the compatibility matrix at http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq is really useful for such questions :-) Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
Hey Ryan, On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote: > hi Vincent, > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: >> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our >> platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > In short, yes. > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to > relicense has made a significant mistake. I don't want to punish them > or anything, but they are the ones who picked a licence that prevents > them from linking against just about anything. At least one company in our ecosystem has been, at least in some cases, writing GPLv3-only code. Which seems like an odd choice to me that probably needs some justification. There have been a couple emails back and forth from the FSF to attempt to clarify how GPLv3-only interacts with GPLv2+ etc code. The FSF compatibility matrix doesn't really address that. I would suggest that the people who want to use GPLv3 make their own case for it, publicly. Thanks, Jon ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
Hi, Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > hi Vincent, > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our > > platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > In short, yes. > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to > relicense has made a significant mistake. I don't want to punish them > or anything, but they are the ones who picked a licence that prevents > them from linking against just about anything. Ah, well, we happen to disagree, then (but we both agree we don't want to punish them ;-)). Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
Hi! > At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it > would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the > GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't > mean that you have to change the licence of existing code -- you just > keep it "v2 or higher". So far so good. But if I may want to link against a LGPLv2 library at the same time it won't work. Because from the matrix, my code will be treated as GPLv3 which means I am not allow to link against LGPLv2. I don't know how many (L)GPLv-only modules there are in GNOME, but any of those will be in trouble when a core library changes its license. As copyright is usually left to individuals in GNOME it is also nearly impossible to change those modules. So, I see pratical problems here... Regards, Johannes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400 Ryan Lortie wrote: > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use > > our platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > In short, yes. > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to > relicense has made a significant mistake. The problem is not only with third-party apps that use the platform. There are also some significant GPLv2 only libraries that GNOME apps may want to use. As examples, Poppler and ClamAV come to my mind. So basically, if Evince wants to use Poppler, it could not legally use a library (be it directly or indirectly) that is LGPLv3 (or later). Using LGPLv3 or later for platform stuff sounds like an explosive situation to me. Holger ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote: hi Vincent, On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our platform but not GPLv2 apps? In short, yes. Can't the platform libraries of gnome be considered as a development platform, and therefore being legally "linkable" from a GPL2 point of view, even if the library itself is LGPL? I mean, I think exceptions exist in GPL to allow programs to link against proprietary platform libraries, to allow some GPL software to run in proprietary MacOS or Microsoft ecosystems, don't they? Our own equivalent of those libraries are glib and gtk+ This would make things a lot simpler. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:49 +, j...@jsschmid.de a écrit : > Hi! > > > At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it > > would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the > > GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't > > mean that you have to change the licence of existing code -- you just > > keep it "v2 or higher". > > So far so good. But if I may want to link against a LGPLv2 library at the > same time it won't work. Because from the matrix, my code will be treated > as GPLv3 which means I am not allow to link against LGPLv2. This is wrong, you can, see http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq#compat-matrix-footnote-7 Problematic libraries are those tht are GPLv2-only (such as goffice). > I don't know how many (L)GPLv-only modules there are in GNOME, but any of > those will be in trouble when a core library changes its license. As > copyright is usually left to individuals in GNOME it is also nearly > impossible to change those modules. > > So, I see pratical problems here... > > Regards, > Johannes > > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On 06/07/10 15:12, j...@jsschmid.de wrote: > Hi! > >> hi Vincent, >> >> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: >>> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our >>> platform but not GPLv2 apps? >> >> In short, yes. >> >> Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted >> enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to >> relicense has made a significant mistake. I don't want to punish them >> or anything, but they are the ones who picked a licence that prevents >> them from linking against just about anything. > > Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still > prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to > GPLv3? > IANAL but LGPLv2+ means that you can use later license like LGPLv3 which is compatible with GPLv3. > Also, am I right that GPLv2+ means that I have GPLv2 in the COPYING but > every file include the "or (at your option) any later version" clause? > IIRC it is included by default in FSF text of license. Regards -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAwAGBQJMMzLoAAoJEJIdee2Vr4aPJO8QAJ7EgO7WzufdqSwJkUN6fk0m MzLK380xhTY8a4KpqJpMxVz5UbZToRMSt3fOTMMoJmEAIv7fTH8+heWQoE7FiqwJ e3mxCPAapjlkP+Vcd6EclEuULgPegJFZ9IEQNegluRhdstkSdiCxDM3KhWV0/MO7 EhKcl43GdLO23l4OFUnOXbW5xj/EIZsdzuS2BwWAGn4z9ldMqVe0VgUwHTvx0htv +oxGJvPBn/X9PgfO23EdTftKOhVqIbk4DjBVpNm/mtoXKU5WYynIEMANNwOvxoKp QUjNS/GpccR4uyQhN67LSLixai6Q9OaQlKoMywqp1Yi9WQz9jmPRehxjEYLQTko9 1CrlTl5PI4LYJv8XWCa8hGaPPF+pjlGNcab0B/7E8BpMdLO3BLc5AncVECl+hpgI CZPwVo53Wd+UR0cwXQ6XkPTA9MAexTWUFe4CbS2iwqmqmokPlkzLtDR98Boqf6A0 BMUipoODInchKHnjfw8DdOn+/LYtnOZJWC7e3bGTBX7AnfSgJdMl6OybfpDqzfww +kKckLWN7jTnYS4E28uVEEJgB7k94UuNBsqV/v6HHiuEDtlqHUqQY9BsAM9yWKF7 AP8XdFymd6HonLNZ40ePD4axPgCnxZNETriIApOMffb1oBe+pN7lBmCaxURF9TMs BQ4O36bJfzzOVRZgf/qw =suIv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:01:54 +0200 Steve Frécinaux wrote: > On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote: > > hi Vincent, > > > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > >> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our > >> platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > > > In short, yes. > > Can't the platform libraries of gnome be considered as a development > platform, and therefore being legally "linkable" from a GPL2 point of > view, even if the library itself is LGPL? > > I mean, I think exceptions exist in GPL to allow programs to link > against proprietary platform libraries, to allow some GPL software to > run in proprietary MacOS or Microsoft ecosystems, don't they? Our own > equivalent of those libraries are glib and gtk+ > > This would make things a lot simpler. No because the FSF also very carefully made sure you couldn't claim it while distributing such libraries. Which means from a distro perspective its not a brilliant plan - or indeed a Gnome one. You might create an environment in which only non GNOME apps could pull that stunt ! ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:34 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote: > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to > > relicense has made a significant mistake. I don't want to punish them > > or anything, but they are the ones who picked a licence that prevents > > them from linking against just about anything. > > At least one company in our ecosystem has been, at least in some > cases, writing GPLv3-only code. Which seems like an odd choice to me > that probably needs some justification. Not sure if you're meaning Canonical there, but I thought I'd clarify if you were. Canonical's policy is that everything is GPLv3 (or AGPLv3 for service stuff) unless an exception is needed. For instance, I got exceptions for libappindicator and libdbusmenu and those are all LGPL2.1/3 to resolve the issue of needing to link with GPLv2 programs. Personally, I feel that libraries need to be LGPLv2/3. I'd love it if they could be LGPLv3, but that's probably not practical. IANAL but I'm curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work, that could be GNOME policy going forward? I like v3, but I think we need to be able to link to v2 programs. --Ted signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
hi Ted, On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote: > IANAL but I'm > curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to > allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work, that could be > GNOME policy going forward? I like v3, but I think we need to be able > to link to v2 programs. As I mentioned it my earlier emails, it's not a term in the LGPLv3 that prevents you from linking GPLv2 programs to it. It's the GPLv2 in the program code that states "you can't link this against anything other than GPLv2 code". Nothing we could add to the library licence (other than dual-licensing under GPLv2) could fix this. Cheers ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
On 06/07/10 18:17, Ryan Lortie wrote: hi Ted, On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote: IANAL but I'm curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work, that could be GNOME policy going forward? I like v3, but I think we need to be able to link to v2 programs. As I mentioned it my earlier emails, it's not a term in the LGPLv3 that prevents you from linking GPLv2 programs to it. It's the GPLv2 in the program code that states "you can't link this against anything other than GPLv2 code". Nothing we could add to the library licence (other than dual-licensing under GPLv2) could fix this. Shame GNOME isn't a standard component of an operating system, right? This all just smells bad. Lets just go BSD :P Rob Cheers ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Rob Taylor, Managing Director, Codethink Ltd. - http://codethink.co.uk Twitter: #robtaylor78 - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/robtaylor78 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote: > > IANAL but I'm > > curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to > > allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work, that could be > > GNOME policy going forward? I like v3, but I think we need to be able > > to link to v2 programs. > > As I mentioned it my earlier emails, it's not a term in the LGPLv3 that > prevents you from linking GPLv2 programs to it. It's the GPLv2 in the > program code that states "you can't link this against anything other > than GPLv2 code". > > Nothing we could add to the library licence (other than dual-licensing > under GPLv2) could fix this. Yes, because of the additional restrictions. And it's my understanding is that there wasn't an exception added to the v3 license for v2 because of concern that people would circumvent the v3 restrictions by making all of their programs v2. Which makes sense. But, it seems like when we're making a choice between dual-licensing v2/3 and v3 with an exception for v2 only -- the exception is the better choice. --Ted signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: (L)GPLv3
El mar, 06-07-2010 a las 12:32 -0500, Ted Gould escribió:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> > It's the GPLv2 in the program code that states "you can't link this
> > against anything other than GPLv2 code".
> >
> > Nothing we could add to the library licence (other than dual-licensing
> > under GPLv2) could fix this.
>
> [...] But, it seems like when we're making a choice between dual-licensing
> v2/3 and v3 with an exception for v2 only -- the exception is the better
> choice.
Not an expert, but if I understood Ryan correctly, it's v2 which would
need the exception ("This program is licenced under GPL v2 only, but you
may link this against anything (L)GPL regardless of version")
Florian
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
