Re: licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache
Apache or GPLv2 is fine. Anything that is GPL-compatable will be acceptable. -ffm On Dec 28, 2007 11:22 AM, David W Hogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear developers, Since I am *loving* my G1G1 (yes I recovered it from the brick I made it yesterday), I am inspired to finally get my planetarium software properly licensed and put into the git repository, with the hope that someday it will be part of the large menu of applications along the bottom bar. That brings me to license. Is there are requirement that OLPC items be GPLv3, or can they be GPLv2 and/or Apache? If there is no choice, why, and if there *is* choice, why should I choose one over the other, from a development and/or technical standpoint? I don't want to start a hell-storm of philosophy; I, too have strong opinions about licensing and IP and etc and etc; I just want to know about the *technical* reasons and differences. David ps. My software is a simple, tiny, fast, and child-readable-hackable planetarium described here: http://howdy.physics.nyu.edu/index.php/OLPC_planetarium pps. Email me if you want to try it -- David W. Hogg - associate professor, NYU - http://cosmo.nyu.edu/hogg/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, ffm wrote: Apache or GPLv2 is fine. Anything that is GPL-compatable will be acceptable. Just to be clear, the Apache License v2 is only compatible with GPLv3: Apache License, Version 2.0 This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL. Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in the older version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#SoftwareLicenses This is a trivial and largely unimportant nitpick. -- Asheesh. -- If God had intended Man to Smoke, He would have set him on Fire. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache
On Dec 28, 2007, at 11:22 AM, David W Hogg wrote:
Is there are requirement that
OLPC items be GPLv3, or can they be GPLv2 and/or Apache?
There's absolutely no such requirement. We will accept any GPL-
compatible license, but generally prefer one of {GPL, MIT, BSD}. I'm
an OLPC core developer, and actively _discourage_ the use of the GPLv3
license as being overly restrictive -- though I speak only for myself,
and my opinions are by no means to be interpreted as the official
position of OLPC. Only one or two pieces of software on the laptop are
presently GPLv3-licensed.
no choice, why, and if there *is* choice, why should I choose one over
the other, from a development and/or technical standpoint?
This is a difficult question with no simple answer. Fundamentally, the
issue is to figure out which particular flavor of freedom you
subscribe to; there are some good resources out there that go into
these issues at great length. As a first pass, take a look at:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Software_licensing
Cheers,
--
Ivan Krstić [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://radian.org
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache
Ivan Krstić wrote:
Only one or two pieces of software on the laptop are
presently GPLv3-licensed.
Specifically,
# rpm -qa --queryformat '%{name} %{license}\n' | grep GPLv3 | sort
espeak GPLv3+
gnash GPLv3+
gnash-plugin GPLv3+
info GPLv3
The number will increase slightly when/if we refresh our
packages with the latest upstream versions:
binutils GPLv3+
cpio GPLv3+
jwhois GPLv3
rsync GPLv3+
--
\___/
|___| Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
\___\ One Laptop Per Child - http://www.laptop.org/
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache
about the *technical* reasons and differences. Apache or GPLv2 is fine. Anything that is GPL-compatable will be acceptable. Gnash is GPLv3, and it's on the OLPC. The latest versions of many other GNU programs are GPLv3 too, and will also make it into later OLPC releases as it gets rebased on later Fedora releases. Most GPLv2 licensed software actually says GPLv2 or any later version. This allows such software to be linked with, and/or converted to, later versions of the license. The Linux kernel is one of the few GPL programs that has stuck with GPLv2-only -- and it will probably not stay that way for the next hundred years. I negotiated with a lot of companies as co-founder of Cygnus, which develops and supports free software for companies that use it. (It's now part of Red Hat.) Licensing your code under Apache, GPLv2, GPLv2+, or GPLv3+ protects the Four Freedoms of its users and developers; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html . The practical difference is that later, people who modify GPL software can't take it proprietary. Often companies will improve free software, for their own use and the use of their customers. The GPL is the argument that makes their lawyers and managers let go of the improvements, rather than reflexively making them proprietary because that's what they learned in law school. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html . Cygnus argued to every customer that freeing their changes is a good business practice, reduces later maintenance costs, reduces market fragmentation, etc. But The license on the underlying software *requires* it is the argument that carried the day every time. Any version of the GPL will do; I use the latest (and allow my software to be relicensed to later versions) because it's the best. GPLv3 isn't US-centric; it allows linking with software licensed under similar non-GNU licenses; and it disallows DRM that would prevent users from removing restrictions that somebody has inserted in it. (While DRM on music has started falling out of the market this year, it's still alive and kicking on proprietary software, video, digital television, and anywhere else that a monopoly wants control over its competitors and its customers.) You can never tell where your software will end up. I wrote the code that became GNU Tar, which now exists in every system that uses rpms or debs, including the OLPC. I am happy that it's been GPL since 1988, and is now GPLv3+. John ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache
Only one or two pieces of software on the laptop are presently GPLv3
Specifically,
# rpm -qa --queryformat '%{name} %{license}\n' | grep GPLv3 | sort
espeak GPLv3+
gnash GPLv3+
gnash-plugin GPLv3+
info GPLv3
Don't forget SimCity, which is shipped on the laptop in the Library,
and is GPLv3+.
(Also, info is actually GPLv3+; I'm filing a bug about that now.)
John
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache
On Dec 28, 2007 6:37 PM, John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I negotiated with a lot of companies as co-founder of Cygnus, which develops and supports free software for companies that use it. (It's now part of Red Hat.) Licensing your code under Apache, GPLv2, GPLv2+, or GPLv3+ protects the Four Freedoms of its users and developers; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html . The practical difference is that later, people who modify GPL software can't take it proprietary. Well this has some otehr practical implications. You might actually want to support proprietary development for various reasons. We licensed the Project Darkstar server under GPL because we want the server technology itself to remain totally open and any improvements be contributed back to the community. However we licensed the client API code BSD because we want the industry to feel free to write commercial games with it. We also are looking at dual licensing because some commercial users *want* a commercial license for variosu business reasons. Keep that in mind, no matter what kind of license you release the code under, you retain all rights (assumign you don't actually give them away). Including the right to license it under other terms any time you like. This is the big difference between an Open Source license and a Public Domain release. The latter gives away all rights and anybody can do anything with it. Myself, I used to write a lot of Public Domain code. Now, I write a lot of BSD licensed code because its almost as free but lets me hold on to the final rights. -- ~~ Microsoft help desk says: reply hazy, ask again later. ~~ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache
BTW... 'free' is a vauge and funny term. I'd argue that BSD and Apache are much freer then GPL because they push no terms upon the users. Others would probably argue that GPL is more free' because what it pushes on the users is that they must in term make their code free. Its all in how you look at it and where your politics lie. I've honestly always been somewhat uncomfortable with the coercive nature of GPL. though in the specific case of the PD server it matched exactly what I wanted. JK On Dec 28, 2007 7:41 PM, Jeffrey Kesselman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 28, 2007 6:37 PM, John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I negotiated with a lot of companies as co-founder of Cygnus, which develops and supports free software for companies that use it. (It's now part of Red Hat.) Licensing your code under Apache, GPLv2, GPLv2+, or GPLv3+ protects the Four Freedoms of its users and developers; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html . The practical difference is that later, people who modify GPL software can't take it proprietary. Well this has some otehr practical implications. You might actually want to support proprietary development for various reasons. -- ~~ Microsoft help desk says: reply hazy, ask again later. ~~ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: licensing: GPLv2, v3, and Apache
Thanks to all who responded. Perhaps surprisingly, these emails clarified some of the issues for me. Will ponder and license, hopefully soon. Then I will apply for git hosting and etc. On Dec 28, 2007 6:37 PM, John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: about the *technical* reasons and differences. Apache or GPLv2 is fine. Anything that is GPL-compatable will be acceptable. Gnash is GPLv3, and it's on the OLPC. The latest versions of many other GNU programs are GPLv3 too, and will also make it into later OLPC releases as it gets rebased on later Fedora releases. Most GPLv2 licensed software actually says GPLv2 or any later version. This allows such software to be linked with, and/or converted to, later versions of the license. The Linux kernel is one of the few GPL programs that has stuck with GPLv2-only -- and it will probably not stay that way for the next hundred years. I negotiated with a lot of companies as co-founder of Cygnus, which develops and supports free software for companies that use it. (It's now part of Red Hat.) Licensing your code under Apache, GPLv2, GPLv2+, or GPLv3+ protects the Four Freedoms of its users and developers; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html . The practical difference is that later, people who modify GPL software can't take it proprietary. Often companies will improve free software, for their own use and the use of their customers. The GPL is the argument that makes their lawyers and managers let go of the improvements, rather than reflexively making them proprietary because that's what they learned in law school. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html . Cygnus argued to every customer that freeing their changes is a good business practice, reduces later maintenance costs, reduces market fragmentation, etc. But The license on the underlying software *requires* it is the argument that carried the day every time. Any version of the GPL will do; I use the latest (and allow my software to be relicensed to later versions) because it's the best. GPLv3 isn't US-centric; it allows linking with software licensed under similar non-GNU licenses; and it disallows DRM that would prevent users from removing restrictions that somebody has inserted in it. (While DRM on music has started falling out of the market this year, it's still alive and kicking on proprietary software, video, digital television, and anywhere else that a monopoly wants control over its competitors and its customers.) You can never tell where your software will end up. I wrote the code that became GNU Tar, which now exists in every system that uses rpms or debs, including the OLPC. I am happy that it's been GPL since 1988, and is now GPLv3+. John -- David W. Hogg - associate professor, NYU - http://cosmo.nyu.edu/hogg/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
