[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] eudev project announcement
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: The systemd developers were in the middle of a transition to the LGPL from the GPL when we forked. We inherited the code in the middle of that transition and we see no reason to pursue a different course. Therefore, all future changes that we make to eudev will be available under the LGPL. Not sure what the driver is to use LGPL, but in general the Gentoo social contract requires that all contributions be made under GPLv2+ or the CC BY-SAv2+. I'm sure exceptions can be made if they make sense and are aligned with Gentoo's mission (likely something that would fall on the Foundation to approve). If eudev were a non-Gentoo project then Gentoo could depend on it as long as it used any OSI-approved license. Why not just use GPLv2+? The LGPL is compatible, so this would not prevent us from merging udev changes. Not suggesting that we shouldn't use the LGPL if there is a good reason to do so that is aligned with Gentoo's mission. I would just like to understand the reason for it. Rich
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] eudev project announcement
Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 07:48:29 -0500 as excerpted: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: The systemd developers were in the middle of a transition to the LGPL from the GPL when we forked. We inherited the code in the middle of that transition and we see no reason to pursue a different course. Therefore, all future changes that we make to eudev will be available under the LGPL. Not sure what the driver is to use LGPL, but in general the Gentoo social contract requires that all contributions be made under GPLv2+ or the CC BY-SAv2+. I'm sure exceptions can be made if they make sense and are aligned with Gentoo's mission (likely something that would fall on the Foundation to approve). If eudev were a non-Gentoo project then Gentoo could depend on it as long as it used any OSI-approved license. Why not just use GPLv2+? The LGPL is compatible, so this would not prevent us from merging udev changes. Not suggesting that we shouldn't use the LGPL if there is a good reason to do so that is aligned with Gentoo's mission. I would just like to understand the reason for it. The biggest reason surely must be two-way license compatibility with udev, allowing patch-flow both ways. As I said in an earlier post, at least from my perspective, the ideal outcome would be that the very presence of eudev creates conditions where the reasons why it was forked no longer exist, and the two projects can ultimately remerge. Surely, as a fork the PR problems are bad enough, and we don't want to be the ones deliberately throwing legal/license road blocks into the way of two-way patch-flow, making the situation worse. If the conditions that triggered eudev forking don't improve, let it be due to decisions from the OTHER side, not due to decisions here. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] eudev project announcement
On 12/15/2012 01:48 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: The systemd developers were in the middle of a transition to the LGPL from the GPL when we forked. We inherited the code in the middle of that transition and we see no reason to pursue a different course. Therefore, all future changes that we make to eudev will be available under the LGPL. Not sure what the driver is to use LGPL, but in general the Gentoo social contract requires that all contributions be made under GPLv2+ or the CC BY-SAv2+. We will release our contributions to Gentoo as free software, metadata or documentation, under the GNU General Public License version 2 (or later, at our discretion) or the Creative Commons - Attribution / Share Alike version 2 (or later, at our discretion). Any external contributions to Gentoo (in the form of freely-distributable sources, binaries, metadata or documentation) may be incorporated into Gentoo provided that we are legally entitled to do so. However, Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of software or metadata unless it conforms to the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License, the Creative Commons - Attribution/Share Alike or some other license approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). eudev is a Gentoo project is not Gentoo. Same could be said for OpenRC. Why not just use GPLv2+? The LGPL is compatible, so this would not prevent us from merging udev changes. udev and eudev provide: - a daemon - a set of core rules - a library to let applications interact with udev (libudev) - a generic language binding using glib-introspection (libgudev) makes perfectly sense to have libraries using LGPL (or even more permissive licenses). I guess you misunderstood what is Gentoo and what is a Gentoo Project. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] eudev project announcement
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: eudev is a Gentoo project is not Gentoo. Same could be said for OpenRC. OpenRC isn't a Gentoo project, at least, it wasn't in the past. The social contract defines Gentoo as a collection of free knowledge, which includes free software contributed by various developers to the Gentoo Project. The social contract is meaningless if it doesn't apply to Gentoo projects. Gentoo projects cover all the arch teams, portage, and all of our documentation. Projects are just how we organize the administration of Gentoo. They aren't something distinct from Gentoo. When you work on a Gentoo project, you work on Gentoo. I guess you misunderstood what is Gentoo and what is a Gentoo Project. Enlighten us, what is Gentoo, if nothing in any Gentoo project is Gentoo? What exactly do you think that section of the Social Contract actually covers? Or is it a pretty document we stick on our website but ignore when it is somehow inconvenient? As I said, I'm fine with making exceptions if it makes sense and furthers the overall mission of Gentoo. However, we shouldn't just ignore the social contract without any kind of consideration at all. If the community doesn't like the social contract we could of course consider amending it as well. Gentoo isn't GitHub. When people donate money to Gentoo they're not donating so that a club of elite coders can use the infrastructure to host just anything that suits their fancy. The reason that we let any Gentoo developer just start a project is because it helps promote innovation and cuts through bureaucracy. That doesn't mean that Gentoo holds no interest in the work that is done under its name. I think that Duncan pointed out a great reason to use LGPL, and using a license that lets us better collaborate with the overall FOSS community is something I think is well-aligned with Gentoo's mission (We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community). However, if we use LGPL it should because of something like this, and not simply be because those working on the project picked it. If for whatever reason the fork diverges to a point where we aren't giving back in the form of patches to upstream then I'd argue that it would make sense to move back to the GPL (something trivially done with or without copyright assignment due to the nature of the LGPL). Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] eudev project announcement
On 12/15/2012 05:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: eudev is a Gentoo project is not Gentoo. Same could be said for OpenRC. OpenRC isn't a Gentoo project, at least, it wasn't in the past. The social contract defines Gentoo as a collection of free knowledge, which includes free software contributed by various developers to the Gentoo Project. The social contract is meaningless if it doesn't apply to Gentoo projects. Gentoo projects cover all the arch teams, portage, and all of our documentation. That part of the social contract section is resembling really closely Debian and shares the same clashing issue when Gentoo has to mix with non-gpl realities such as FreeBSD. We are not going to relicense to GPL all the software we touch, it would be at least rude. Projects are just how we organize the administration of Gentoo. They aren't something distinct from Gentoo. When you work on a Gentoo project, you work on Gentoo. Again, looks like there is a huge misunderstanding on what a project is, the term is much often overloaded since you have Gentoo, the community and the distribution and projects fostered by Gentoo. I guess you misunderstood what is Gentoo and what is a Gentoo Project. Enlighten us, what is Gentoo, if nothing in any Gentoo project is Gentoo? See above =) What exactly do you think that section of the Social Contract actually covers? Or is it a pretty document we stick on our website but ignore when it is somehow inconvenient? The social contract is meant to assure that we will preserve and maintain the freedoms we got as foundation the best we could. That section is clumsy in stating it as is in Debian, agreed. As I said, I'm fine with making exceptions if it makes sense and furthers the overall mission of Gentoo. There is no exception to be made. However, we shouldn't just ignore the social contract without any kind of consideration at all. Again, the document doesn't really relate to any Gentoo project as expressed as anything different from the distribution as whole. If the community doesn't like the social contract we could of course consider amending it as well. Clarifying to avoid such misunderstandings it seems necessary. Gentoo isn't GitHub. When people donate money to Gentoo they're not donating so that a club of elite coders can use the infrastructure to host just anything that suits their fancy. The reason that we let any Gentoo developer just start a project is because it helps promote innovation and cuts through bureaucracy. That doesn't mean that Gentoo holds no interest in the work that is done under its name. Again, we have a number of projects under permissive licenses since we DO want work with the BSD community or we rely on software originated by them, relicensing any software to GPL would be rude and quite pointless. I'm afraid you are ignoring the fact core libraries should not be GPL to not hinder adoption. (check which software uses libudev or libgudev and see how much of it won't work anymore had you relicensed those libraries to GPL) If for whatever reason the fork diverges to a point where we aren't giving back in the form of patches to upstream then I'd argue that it would make sense to move back to the GPL (something trivially done with or without copyright assignment due to the nature of the LGPL). I'd be happy to consider this once we reach this stage and you are among the main contributors. Currently I guess people would be happy to have their udev working as should. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] eudev project announcement
On 12/15/2012 11:20 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: Gentoo isn't GitHub. When people donate money to Gentoo they're not donating so that a club of elite coders can use the infrastructure to host just anything that suits their fancy. The reason that we let any Gentoo developer just start a project is because it helps promote innovation and cuts through bureaucracy. That doesn't mean that Gentoo holds no interest in the work that is done under its name. I made the github comparison as a simplification to preempt further notions of the idea that being a Gentoo project reflects a collective agreement that we are abandoning systemd-udevd in our distribution. I think that Duncan pointed out a great reason to use LGPL, and using a license that lets us better collaborate with the overall FOSS community is something I think is well-aligned with Gentoo's mission (We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community). However, if we use LGPL it should because of something like this, and not simply be because those working on the project picked it. If for whatever reason the fork diverges to a point where we aren't giving back in the form of patches to upstream then I'd argue that it would make sense to move back to the GPL (something trivially done with or without copyright assignment due to the nature of the LGPL). The systemd developers have made it clear that they are not interested in our changes. That is why we forked in the first place. Our plan is to keep the door open for them to cherry-pick patches should they decide to start supporting some of the system configurations that we support. I consider this to be the reason why OSS developers give away source code in the first place. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
