Re: Move to LGPL3
(cc'ing Luis) Le mercredi 19 mars 2008, à 02:14 +, Alberto Ruiz a écrit : But for this kind of issues, I suggest to ask for help to the foundation for legal advisory here, licenses are not that much about personal interpretation, but effective transposition into each countries' laws and stuff like that. I feel that the only way to make sure we don't mess this up is having proper consultancy about what can be done, and what can't be done. Replying a bit late, but of course, the Foundation would be happy to help here. Luis can have a phone meeting with a few people to discuss all this, or we can transmit legal questions to lawyers, etc. So basically, if help is needed on this topic, just ask :-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (cc'ing Luis) Le mercredi 19 mars 2008, à 02:14 +, Alberto Ruiz a écrit : But for this kind of issues, I suggest to ask for help to the foundation for legal advisory here, licenses are not that much about personal interpretation, but effective transposition into each countries' laws and stuff like that. I feel that the only way to make sure we don't mess this up is having proper consultancy about what can be done, and what can't be done. Replying a bit late, but of course, the Foundation would be happy to help here. Luis can have a phone meeting with a few people to discuss all this, or we can transmit legal questions to lawyers, etc. So basically, if help is needed on this topic, just ask :-) Yup! That's what I'm here for; I'd be happy to try to get answers [IANALY!] to any questions. [Note that I'm not on gtk-devel anymore, so please cc me or write me directly.] Luis ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean Bréfort wrote: Windows API (and may be DirectX) is a special case, because you can't write a Windows program without using it. It's not a special case. There is certainly no reference to the Windows API in the GPL or the LGPL. The only license that matters when it comes to deciding whether or not you can link to the Windows API, is the license that Microsoft grants you for the Windows API. The GPL cannot dictate how you may or may not make use of the Windows API. I do not see a clause anywhere that states you may never derive from, or make us of, a non-GPL or non-LGPL library. It is always the product you are deriving from, or making use There's no explicit reference to the Windows API in the GPL or LGPL, but there's an important clause in both the GPLv2.0 and LGPL2.1: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. In this case, the Windows API and DirectX would be considered normally distributed major components of the operating system, and thus be ok to use in a L/GPL licensed work. Dom ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Dominic Lachowicz wrote: On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean Bréfort wrote: Windows API (and may be DirectX) is a special case, because you can't write a Windows program without using it. It's not a special case. There is certainly no reference to the Windows API in the GPL or the LGPL. The only license that matters when it comes to deciding whether or not you can link to the Windows API, is the license that Microsoft grants you for the Windows API. The GPL cannot dictate how you may or may not make use of the Windows API. I do not see a clause anywhere that states you may never derive from, or make us of, a non-GPL or non-LGPL library. It is always the product you are deriving from, or making use There's no explicit reference to the Windows API in the GPL or LGPL, but there's an important clause in both the GPLv2.0 and LGPL2.1: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. In this case, the Windows API and DirectX would be considered normally distributed major components of the operating system, and thus be ok to use in a L/GPL licensed work. This is open to interpretation - but the exact wording of the license does not necessarily match the legal rights a person has in terms of copyright law, and the ability for a copyright to limit the use of the product. In my opinion, the special exception is not part of the license, but stating the obvious. I don't believe the GPL can stop me from linking with non-GPL software, as long as I don't distribute my change as a derived work. Copyright law is about distribution rights. There are efforts to change this, such as the digital protection groups, who are trying (and have succeeded?) in making it illegal to make some uses of products, such as reverse engineering. If I choose to download Oracle, and connect a GPL product to Oracle *without redistribution*, there is nothing the FSF can do to stop me. Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Mark Mielke wrote: If I choose to download Oracle, and connect a GPL product to Oracle *without redistribution*, there is nothing the FSF can do to stop me. They actually don't. GPL applies only if you distribute modified or unmodified result. At home (or within your company if you are an employee) you can do anything you want. Paul ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Mark Mielke wrote: If I choose to download Oracle, and connect a GPL product to Oracle *without redistribution*, there is nothing the FSF can do to stop me. I should qualify - I went down a path I thought Dominic was leading but away from the Gtk topic. The above is grey in terms of whether it applies to Gtk. It comes down to whether use of a published interface constitutes creating a derived work, and whether a license can reasonable prevent the use of one component to be used with another. Imagine you were given a brand new BWM on the condition that you cannot use anything but BWM parts in it. You take the BWM, and ignore the agreement. In a court of law, would the court system truly require you to give the BWM back? I doubt it. They would laugh at your accuser. Not all agreements are binding in a court of law. In Canada (not sure about the US), even a signature on a document is not legally binding (although it may influence the judge). This is pretty grey and goes to my previous post. Suffice it to say that nearly everyone posted thus far (probably including me) is likely to be incorrect unless by accident. Even referring to wording of the license or tables on the FSF web site that purport to declare compatibility are NOT conclusive, as these are opinions, and in the case of the FSF, they are opinions with an agenda. The GPL is not well tried in a court of law, and laws change from country to country. That said, Gtk is using the GPL license, and the FSF should be accountable for problems they create through the publishing of licenses they author. The Gtk community representatives should be active in the community that is defining the LGPL3 (or GPL3 although this may be late) to ensure that the needs of the Gtk community are fulfilled. Walking in late as a what does this mean to me? oh oh... is somewhat irresponsible. :-) Sorry. Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Paul Pogonyshev wrote: Mark Mielke wrote: If I choose to download Oracle, and connect a GPL product to Oracle *without redistribution*, there is nothing the FSF can do to stop me. They actually don't. GPL applies only if you distribute modified or unmodified result. At home (or within your company if you are an employee) you can do anything you want. Yep - exactly. And system libraries fall into this category, because it is not distributed with the product (GPL is not derived from the system libraries - they merely use it). I, the end user, am using them together. The special exception is stating the obvious. It's not reducing any confusion except to say of the many uses we cannot reasonably prevent, linking to system libraries is definitely one of them. Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
This is open to interpretation - but the exact wording of the license does not necessarily match the legal rights a person has in terms of copyright law, and the ability for a copyright to limit the use of the product. In my opinion, the special exception is not part of the license, but stating the obvious. I don't believe the GPL can stop me from linking with non-GPL software, as long as I don't distribute my change as a derived work. Copyright law is about distribution rights. Indeed it is. But I, an application vendor, shipping an EXE of GPL'd licensed software (let's call this product AbiWord) that's linked to the Microsoft C runtime is most certainly a distribution. And it most certainly is a derivative work of the MSFT C runtime. The GPL says that, in this case, I'm only responsible for providing you the source code to my application, and not the source to the MSVCRT. The GPL (and not only the MSFT EULA license, as you claim) can and indeed does dictate if and how you can derive from another work *if you choose to distribute the resulting work.* That's why the GPL compatibility matrix exists, why there are 20 implementations of SSH, and why we're having this LGPL 3 discussion. The GPL's exception clause isn't superfluous, as you claim. It doesn't mention you linking something on your own machine without distributing it. You're correct - as a distribution-based license, it doesn't have to. The clause is directly targeted at the distribution of Free software works on non-Free operating systems. So yes, this exception is important and necessary, it is a special case, and it does (without mentioning Microsoft specifically) address the case of whether you can use Microsoft's APIs in your GPL'd program. Cheers, Dom ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:03 +0100, ext ryan lortie wrote: Hello. After some talk at the Hackfest about it, I'm writing the list to officially request that glib and GTK be moved to LGPL version 3 or later. IANAL and all, but here are a few points for consideration based on my experience after being exposed to Nokia legal machinery. 1. Changing the wording from version 2 or later to version 3 or later will remove the 2 or later option. To my understanding changing the terms of the license text counts as relicensing. 2. Due to the (L)GPLv2 and v3 incompatibility everything above glib (or gtk+) would have to be distributed under v3, which as already noted is a problem if you have any v2 only sources in any glib application. It would be a significant disruption for distributors to make sure all the licenses are OK. 3. Companies are vary of GPLv3. It took a long time to begin to understand GPLv2, GPLv3 is still relatively more intimidating. -- Tommi Komulainen[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Hi Tommi, Am Dienstag, den 18.03.2008, 11:56 +0200 schrieb Tommi Komulainen: On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:03 +0100, ext ryan lortie wrote: After some talk at the Hackfest about it, I'm writing the list to officially request that glib and GTK be moved to LGPL version 3 or later. IANAL and all, but here are a few points for consideration based on my experience after being exposed to Nokia legal machinery. 1. Changing the wording from version 2 or later to version 3 or later will remove the 2 or later option. To my understanding changing the terms of the license text counts as relicensing. Not really, using LGPL 2 or later code unter the terms of LGPL 3 or later is explicitly allowed by the or later amendment. Replacing the LGPL 2 part of that phrase with LGPL 3 is completely okay. The text would only have to be changed once the first patches with LGPL 3 or later (no LGPL 2 anymore) start getting applied. Remember, anyone is still free to use the last release published under LGPL 2 or later (that's why I actually think that we should only do that with GTK+ 3.0 if we have really large/good features arriving after 3.0 which people will want to see in their applications - to make them consider relicensing). Regards, Sven ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Does that really apply for the code you link to? Afaik, if a GPL program uses an LGPL library, it doesn't relicense that library under GPL too, it merely links to it, and leaves it up to the user to make sure the library is available. If this would be the case, than it wouldn't be possible for GPL code to use something like the Windows API or DirectX either. I think the restriction from the link you posted only apply to GPL libraries, but not LGPL. On 3/17/08, Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, den 17.03.2008, 00:31 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann: I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that programs licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3 allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me! Is the FSF spreading FUD with their license matrix? Why doesn't the matrix have footnotes explaining that absurd conflict? Ok, it is not FUD. It seems the problem is, that LGPLv3 imposes additional restrictions not found in the GPLv2. So it isn't the LGPLv3 that forbids LGPLv3 libraries to be used by GPLv2-only programs. It is the GPLv2 which forbids to linking against libraries more restrictive than itself. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility for details. In theory LGPLv3 allows addition of exceptions, but they have to be approved by all copyright holders. Doubt this will happen. So only chance for upgrading to a new version of the LGPL is waiting for an FSF approved version of the LGPL, which drops those additional restrictions for GPLv2-only programs. Total insanity... Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/ Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Ok, according to the matrix on http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility it's indeed not allowed, although I don't really understand why. On 3/18/08, Lieven van der Heide [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does that really apply for the code you link to? Afaik, if a GPL program uses an LGPL library, it doesn't relicense that library under GPL too, it merely links to it, and leaves it up to the user to make sure the library is available. If this would be the case, than it wouldn't be possible for GPL code to use something like the Windows API or DirectX either. I think the restriction from the link you posted only apply to GPL libraries, but not LGPL. On 3/17/08, Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, den 17.03.2008, 00:31 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann: I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that programs licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3 allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me! Is the FSF spreading FUD with their license matrix? Why doesn't the matrix have footnotes explaining that absurd conflict? Ok, it is not FUD. It seems the problem is, that LGPLv3 imposes additional restrictions not found in the GPLv2. So it isn't the LGPLv3 that forbids LGPLv3 libraries to be used by GPLv2-only programs. It is the GPLv2 which forbids to linking against libraries more restrictive than itself. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility for details. In theory LGPLv3 allows addition of exceptions, but they have to be approved by all copyright holders. Doubt this will happen. So only chance for upgrading to a new version of the LGPL is waiting for an FSF approved version of the LGPL, which drops those additional restrictions for GPLv2-only programs. Total insanity... Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/ Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Windows API (and may be DirectX) is a special case, because you can't write a Windows program without using it. Le mardi 18 mars 2008 à 12:57 +0100, Lieven van der Heide a écrit : Ok, according to the matrix on http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility it's indeed not allowed, although I don't really understand why. On 3/18/08, Lieven van der Heide [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does that really apply for the code you link to? Afaik, if a GPL program uses an LGPL library, it doesn't relicense that library under GPL too, it merely links to it, and leaves it up to the user to make sure the library is available. If this would be the case, than it wouldn't be possible for GPL code to use something like the Windows API or DirectX either. I think the restriction from the link you posted only apply to GPL libraries, but not LGPL. On 3/17/08, Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, den 17.03.2008, 00:31 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann: I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that programs licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3 allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me! Is the FSF spreading FUD with their license matrix? Why doesn't the matrix have footnotes explaining that absurd conflict? Ok, it is not FUD. It seems the problem is, that LGPLv3 imposes additional restrictions not found in the GPLv2. So it isn't the LGPLv3 that forbids LGPLv3 libraries to be used by GPLv2-only programs. It is the GPLv2 which forbids to linking against libraries more restrictive than itself. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility for details. In theory LGPLv3 allows addition of exceptions, but they have to be approved by all copyright holders. Doubt this will happen. So only chance for upgrading to a new version of the LGPL is waiting for an FSF approved version of the LGPL, which drops those additional restrictions for GPLv2-only programs. Total insanity... Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/ Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Hi all, Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3 (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2). This method allows people to link GTK+ with any of the following: - LGPLv2.1-only (since it's compatible with GPLv2 or later); - LGPLv3 or later; - GPLv2 (because of the linking exception); - GPLv3 (because LGPLv3 is explicitly compatible with GPLv3). Notes: Re-licensing GTK+ won't pose any problems - the current license allows it to be redistributed as LGPLv3/GPLv2 as a whole, so no problem there. The main reason to move to LGPLv3 is usually the patent protection. By using the GPLv2 (as opposed to LGPLv2.1) exception, GTK+ will limit the damage by forcing the proprietary folk to use LGPLv3 (since most of them can't use GPLv2), so the patent protection is still in effect. I always wonder how the programmer has to be a lawyer too these days. :) Thanks, Alexander ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
If this would be the case, than it wouldn't be possible for GPL code to use something like the Windows API or DirectX either. And don't forget proprietary Unixes with proprietary C libraries. That was after all the expected runtime for the original GPL programs (like Emacs, gcc, bison, etc) that existed long before there was any LGPL C library on a GPL kernel to run them. --tml ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Quoting GPL 2: »However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.« Regards, Sven Am Dienstag, den 18.03.2008, 12:35 +0100 schrieb Lieven van der Heide: Does that really apply for the code you link to? Afaik, if a GPL program uses an LGPL library, it doesn't relicense that library under GPL too, it merely links to it, and leaves it up to the user to make sure the library is available. If this would be the case, than it wouldn't be possible for GPL code to use something like the Windows API or DirectX either. I think the restriction from the link you posted only apply to GPL libraries, but not LGPL. On 3/17/08, Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, den 17.03.2008, 00:31 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann: I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that programs licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3 allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me! Is the FSF spreading FUD with their license matrix? Why doesn't the matrix have footnotes explaining that absurd conflict? Ok, it is not FUD. It seems the problem is, that LGPLv3 imposes additional restrictions not found in the GPLv2. So it isn't the LGPLv3 that forbids LGPLv3 libraries to be used by GPLv2-only programs. It is the GPLv2 which forbids to linking against libraries more restrictive than itself. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility for details. In theory LGPLv3 allows addition of exceptions, but they have to be approved by all copyright holders. Doubt this will happen. So only chance for upgrading to a new version of the LGPL is waiting for an FSF approved version of the LGPL, which drops those additional restrictions for GPLv2-only programs. Total insanity... Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/ Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Lieven van der Heide wrote: Ok, according to the matrix on http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility it's indeed not allowed, although I don't really understand why. Mathias pointed out exactly why. It's not that linking GPLv2-only to LGPLv3 violates the LGPLv3 license of the library. Linking a GPLv2-only app to a LGPLv3 library actually violates the app's its own license. The GPL in general doesn't allow linking to libraries with more restrictive licenses[1], and the LGPLv3 is more restrictive than GPLv2-only. -brian [1] The exception being for supposed platform libraries; e.g., you can link to Microsoft's C runtime even though it's closed source because it's a standard interface that can be considered part of the OS. I believe Sven quoted the exact bit from the GPL in another post. On 3/18/08, Lieven van der Heide [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does that really apply for the code you link to? Afaik, if a GPL program uses an LGPL library, it doesn't relicense that library under GPL too, it merely links to it, and leaves it up to the user to make sure the library is available. If this would be the case, than it wouldn't be possible for GPL code to use something like the Windows API or DirectX either. I think the restriction from the link you posted only apply to GPL libraries, but not LGPL. On 3/17/08, Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, den 17.03.2008, 00:31 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann: I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that programs licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3 allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me! Is the FSF spreading FUD with their license matrix? Why doesn't the matrix have footnotes explaining that absurd conflict? Ok, it is not FUD. It seems the problem is, that LGPLv3 imposes additional restrictions not found in the GPLv2. So it isn't the LGPLv3 that forbids LGPLv3 libraries to be used by GPLv2-only programs. It is the GPLv2 which forbids to linking against libraries more restrictive than itself. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility for details. In theory LGPLv3 allows addition of exceptions, but they have to be approved by all copyright holders. Doubt this will happen. So only chance for upgrading to a new version of the LGPL is waiting for an FSF approved version of the LGPL, which drops those additional restrictions for GPLv2-only programs. Total insanity... Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/ Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Alexander Shaduri wrote: Hi all, Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3 (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2). Hmm, there's a nifty idea. All GPLv2-compatible projects could still use gtk without any changes, and, as you say, all closed proprietary apps would be forced to follow the terms of the LGPLv3 for gtk. Open question: are there any weird legal side-effects of dual-licensing? I recall a big deal in the *BSD community not to long ago where some people didn't believe that dual-licensing was even legal (or something like that). Aside from that, would there be any downsides to any existing open source apps that use gtk? -brian ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Alexander Shaduri wrote: Hi all, Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3 (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2). But you can't do that. Gtk is *LGPL*-2, so you can't make it GPL-2 (unless you convince all contributors, including aliens and dead). For a linking exception, you'd need a lawyer to say if it's possible. Yevgen ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Yevgen Muntyan wrote: Alexander Shaduri wrote: Hi all, Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3 (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2). But you can't do that. Gtk is *LGPL*-2, so you can't make it GPL-2 (unless you convince all contributors, including aliens and dead). Yes, you can. Quoth the LGPLv2.1: You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. [...] (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Personally I think this clause is kinda ridiculous, but it's there, nonetheless. Any LGPLv#-covered program can be relicensed as a GPLv#-or-later program as well. Interestingly, my reading of this shows that, even if you license under LGPLv2.1-only, someone can relicense as GPLv2-or-later, or GPLv3-or-later, or even GPLv3-only. -brian ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Yevgen Muntyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gtk is *LGPL*-2, so you can't make it GPL-2 (unless you convince all contributors, including aliens and dead). It appears that you have not read LGPLv2. Clause 3 explicitly says that You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Brian J. Tarricone wrote: Yevgen Muntyan wrote: Alexander Shaduri wrote: Hi all, Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3 (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2). But you can't do that. Gtk is *LGPL*-2, so you can't make it GPL-2 (unless you convince all contributors, including aliens and dead). Yes, you can. Quoth the LGPLv2.1: Right. My bad, confused the order. I will not talk about licenses without consulting my lawyer first ;) Yevgen ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 16:03 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. [...] (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Personally I think this clause is kinda ridiculous, but it's there, nonetheless. It is there because implicitely LGPL code linked with GPL code becomes GPL as a whole[1], just because LGPL allow setting restriction that the GPL does not allow (hence the Lesser- part in the name). Similarly how the v2+ is compatible with v3+ via the upgrade part of the licence. Hub [1] Where are talking about a whole software as it is being redistributed. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Hubert Figuiere wrote: On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 16:03 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. [...] (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Personally I think this clause is kinda ridiculous, but it's there, nonetheless. It is there because implicitely LGPL code linked with GPL code becomes GPL as a whole[1], just because LGPL allow setting restriction that the GPL does not allow (hence the Lesser- part in the name). Similarly how the v2+ is compatible with v3+ via the upgrade part of the licence. Hub [1] Where are talking about a whole software as it is being redistributed. Getting a little OT, but... the issue I have is that, unless I'm reading it wrong, if I release something under LGPLv2.1-only (i.e., NO or any later version wording), then someone can still relicense my code under GPLv3, or even GPLv2-or-later. (But, strangely, one couldn't relicense as LGPLv3.) I'm not terribly concerned about being able to relicense LGPL to GPL *of the same version*, but discarding my wishes to stay with the same (L)GPL version is not ok (to me, anyway). -brian ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Tommi Komulainen wrote: IANAL and all, but here are a few points for consideration based on my experience after being exposed to Nokia legal machinery. 1. Changing the wording from version 2 or later to version 3 or later will remove the 2 or later option. To my understanding changing the terms of the license text counts as relicensing. The license explicitly allows for this, though. The license allows for itself to be relicensed, providing the new license is blessed by the FSF. There would be no value to stating version 2 or later if it meant version 2 only. Anybody - including you or I, may privately take a GPL v2 piece of software, change the license to GPL v3 (without even notifying the original authors), and distribute all further modifications under GPL v3 only. This clause made me uneasy when I first read it 10 to 20 years ago. The idea that if I distribute a program under GPL v2, the FSF could be taken over by somebody worse than Richard Stallman, create a new license stating anything it wishes (as long as it is called GPL v2 or later), and redistribute all my software under this new license. This is why the GPL is labeled a virus by some. I am not up-to-date on LGPL v3. What I state above is for GPL v3 only. 2. Due to the (L)GPLv2 and v3 incompatibility everything above glib (or gtk+) would have to be distributed under v3, which as already noted is a problem if you have any v2 only sources in any glib application. It would be a significant disruption for distributors to make sure all the licenses are OK. It is only a problem if these v2 programs require updates. If the v2 programs stick to v2 interfaces, there is no issue. 3. Companies are vary of GPLv3. It took a long time to begin to understand GPLv2, GPLv3 is still relatively more intimidating. The GPL has always been scary. The people who were ever comfortable with it, probably didn't read the fine print. Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Jean Bréfort wrote: Windows API (and may be DirectX) is a special case, because you can't write a Windows program without using it. It's not a special case. There is certainly no reference to the Windows API in the GPL or the LGPL. The only license that matters when it comes to deciding whether or not you can link to the Windows API, is the license that Microsoft grants you for the Windows API. The GPL cannot dictate how you may or may not make use of the Windows API. I do not see a clause anywhere that states you may never derive from, or make us of, a non-GPL or non-LGPL library. It is always the product you are deriving from, or making use of, whose license defines what you are allowed to do or not allow to do. The GPL virus is in the form of a copyright. It prevents people from copying, which includes distribution of the product and derivations of the product. Accessing a non-GPL library is not copying of GPL code. Using the published interface of another library is not copying of GPL code. If such were the case, it would be impossible to use GPL software on anything except for a full-stack GPL system, arguably including the hardware. It would be ridiculous and impractical for everybody, including the FSF. The GPL cannot prevent you from linking a given product with another library. However, the GPL can force all products that are derived from a GPL product, to themselves be GPL products. Library use, that of linking at run time, is a grey zone in terms of whether a product is derived from the library, or merely makes use of it. Most interpretations I have read consider it a violation if a non-GPL product links to a GPL product, unless the use of the GPL library is one of at least two options, and effort is made to distance oneself from any conclusion that the product might require the use of a GPL library or that the product will function better with the GPL library. Messy. Anyways - I hope this helps. Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
2008/3/19, Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jean Bréfort wrote: I can't see this thread going anywhere close to a conclusion, at this point we should stop discussing about the hundreds of possible interpretations of the licenses. Probably none of the people that has participated is a lawyer, we all try hard to understand the licenses and respect them, so I'm not trying to say that any of us knows anything about licensing. But for this kind of issues, I suggest to ask for help to the foundation for legal advisory here, licenses are not that much about personal interpretation, but effective transposition into each countries' laws and stuff like that. I feel that the only way to make sure we don't mess this up is having proper consultancy about what can be done, and what can't be done. And just then, let's discuss what we wanna do among the real choices. Everything else is kind of noise to me, and I think is not helping to clear it up (even though some mails have come up with really good points). My 2 cents anyway. -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 14:16 +0400, Alexander Shaduri wrote: Hi all, Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3 (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2). This idea crossed my mind as well. It has a couple of interesting ups and downs. 1. Any program that is GPL2-only-plus-exceptions would be compatible, but the plus exceptions clause would effectively be nullified by the straight-up-GPL2 GTK. Depending on who you talk to, this may or may not be the case with the LGPL (Havoc, for example, believes LGPL also has this problem). In any case, I don't know if anyone is affected by this. 2. You lose a lot of the benefit of the relicense. It would still leave us open to, for example, tivoisation (although, they'd have to tivoise us under the GPL2 which means that they'd have to provide source to anything they linked against -- an interesting twist). Probably this is the only idea that can really be practically used in the short term without hurting some projects in our community. As an interesting twist: this idea could be applied short-term and the GPL2 option marked as deprecated as a lead-up to a future LGPLv3+-only release (3.0, naturally)... Cheers signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch a écrit : Hi Jean; Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort: Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only libraries? This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how major it is. I have to admit that it is however not a theoretical problem, since we just found out that we do depend on one such library in Gnome: evince uses libpoppler which is a fork of Xpdf, and it is GPL version 2 only. Other affected projects are Goffice (GPL-v2 only) and all those which depend on it, namely Gnumeric, Abiword, Gnucash and GChemUtils (the last also use OpenBabel, another GPL-v2 only library). Seems that all the projects I'm involved in would be affected. Some can be relicensed, but probably not all, just because some previous contributors seem to have disappeared from the earth surface. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:48 +0100, Tim Janik wrote: On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Andrew Cowie wrote: This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html In summary, attempting to relicence the library would be, in practise, impossible. No further benefit is gained by discussing this topic further. Updating the glib gtk+ headers to LGPLv3 is not relicensing. Our headers currently state: * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. So, everone is allowed to redistribute [...] under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License [...] version 2 [...] or [...] later, which LGPLv3 fullfills. Accepting LGPLv3 submissions in the future means that the library as a whole would effectively become LGPL = 3 licensed. So then, we might as well adapt our headers to reflect this. The LGPL also says: To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. Which means you can't add more restrictions to the license without effectively relicensing. I'm pretty sure it would also be a mess for applications that want to use proprietary GStreamer plugins. ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:48 +0100, Tim Janik wrote: Our headers currently state: * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The LGPL also says: To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. Which means you can't add more restrictions to the license without effectively relicensing. We're not retro-changing the license of anything that has been released already, so we're not restricting rights anyone already has. We're talking about modifying redistributing future versions of GLib Gtk+ under LGPLv3, which the license clearly allows. --- ciaoTJ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Am Sonntag, den 16.03.2008, 07:49 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort: Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch a écrit : Hi Jean; Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort: Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only libraries? This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how major it is. I have to admit that it is however not a theoretical problem, since we just found out that we do depend on one such library in Gnome: evince uses libpoppler which is a fork of Xpdf, and it is GPL version 2 only. Other affected projects are Goffice (GPL-v2 only) and all those which depend on it, namely Gnumeric, Abiword, Gnucash and GChemUtils (the last also use OpenBabel, another GPL-v2 only library). Seems that all the projects I'm involved in would be affected. Some can be relicensed, but probably not all, just because some previous contributors seem to have disappeared from the earth surface. I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that programs licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3 allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me! Is the FSF spreading FUD with their license matrix? Why doesn't the matrix have footnotes explaining that absurd conflict? Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/ Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:48 +0100 schrieb Tim Janik: On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Andrew Cowie wrote: This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html In summary, attempting to relicence the library would be, in practise, impossible. No further benefit is gained by discussing this topic further. Updating the glib gtk+ headers to LGPLv3 is not relicensing. Alternative interpretation: You fork under LGPLv3 or later, as permitted by LGPLv2.1 or later and keep LGPLv3 or later for the fork. Well, but I am no expert on legal stuff... Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/ Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Mathias Hasselmann wrote: Am Sonntag, den 16.03.2008, 07:49 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort: Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch a écrit : Hi Jean; Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort: Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only libraries? This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how major it is. I have to admit that it is however not a theoretical problem, since we just found out that we do depend on one such library in Gnome: evince uses libpoppler which is a fork of Xpdf, and it is GPL version 2 only. Other affected projects are Goffice (GPL-v2 only) and all those which depend on it, namely Gnumeric, Abiword, Gnucash and GChemUtils (the last also use OpenBabel, another GPL-v2 only library). Seems that all the projects I'm involved in would be affected. Some can be relicensed, but probably not all, just because some previous contributors seem to have disappeared from the earth surface. I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that programs licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3 allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me! It does say something about *GPL*, not about LGPL-3. You know, GPL-compatible license thing. Freedom or protection damn it. This Gtk relicensing thing is funny, by the way. Imagine this in a configure.ac PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GTK, gtk+-2.0 = 2.6) PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GTK_LEGAL, gtk+-2.0 2.16, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([sorry but I won't do it, ask Gtk folks if you want to know why, I don't know why])]) Yevgen ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch wrote: Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort: Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only libraries? This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how major it is. I have to admit that it is however not a theoretical problem, since we just found out that we do depend on one such library in Gnome: evince uses libpoppler which is a fork of Xpdf, and it is GPL version 2 only. Maybe it is good to start the relicensing process for (L)GPLv2-only to (L)GPLv2+. After all, that's the way the GPL is written. An please donc make the option of v3-only like KDE did. It is not practical. I totally agree about moving to v3, but don't put the cart before the horses :-) Hub ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Move to LGPL3
Hello. After some talk at the Hackfest about it, I'm writing the list to officially request that glib and GTK be moved to LGPL version 3 or later. The reasons for this are the increased clarity in the language of the license plus the ability to accept LGPL3 code into glib/gtk ((since it seems like things will be increasingly using LGPL3 in the future)). There is also the matter of the additional protections offered by the LGPL3. Everyone I talked to at the hackfest was in favour of these. There is the option of simply making a policy change and saying we now accept code under LGPL3+, but existing code is still LGPL2+ and leaving all of the copyright notices alone. Tim thought that probably it would be a better idea to change all of the headers to explicitly state LGPL3+ (in order to, among other things, avoid confusion about what license new contributions occur under). If we decide to change all of the existing copyright notices, I'd volunteer to make the patch to do so. Cheers ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only libraries? Regards, Jean Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:03 +0100, ryan lortie a écrit : Hello. After some talk at the Hackfest about it, I'm writing the list to officially request that glib and GTK be moved to LGPL version 3 or later. The reasons for this are the increased clarity in the language of the license plus the ability to accept LGPL3 code into glib/gtk ((since it seems like things will be increasingly using LGPL3 in the future)). There is also the matter of the additional protections offered by the LGPL3. Everyone I talked to at the hackfest was in favour of these. There is the option of simply making a policy change and saying we now accept code under LGPL3+, but existing code is still LGPL2+ and leaving all of the copyright notices alone. Tim thought that probably it would be a better idea to change all of the headers to explicitly state LGPL3+ (in order to, among other things, avoid confusion about what license new contributions occur under). If we decide to change all of the existing copyright notices, I'd volunteer to make the patch to do so. Cheers ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html In summary, attempting to relicence the library would be, in practise, impossible. No further benefit is gained by discussing this topic further. AfC Berlin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Hi; Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:16 +0100 schrieb Andrew Cowie: This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html In summary, attempting to relicence the library would be, in practise, impossible. Your link is not at all pertinent to the discussion. If you looked at the gtk+ sources, you'll find that it says LGPL 2 or (at your option) any later version. This gives us the right to use and distribute it under the terms of either the LGPL2, or LGPL3+. We may just choose to remove the LGPL2 option. No further benefit is gained by discussing this topic further. You don't get to end this discussion without everyone else having had their say, especially when you haven't contributed anything to the discussion. Regards, Christian ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Hi Jean; Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort: Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only libraries? This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how major it is. I have to admit that it is however not a theoretical problem, since we just found out that we do depend on one such library in Gnome: evince uses libpoppler which is a fork of Xpdf, and it is GPL version 2 only. Regards, Christian ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Andrew Cowie wrote: This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html In summary, attempting to relicence the library would be, in practise, impossible. No further benefit is gained by discussing this topic further. Updating the glib gtk+ headers to LGPLv3 is not relicensing. Our headers currently state: * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. So, everone is allowed to redistribute [...] under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License [...] version 2 [...] or [...] later, which LGPLv3 fullfills. Accepting LGPLv3 submissions in the future means that the library as a whole would effectively become LGPL = 3 licensed. So then, we might as well adapt our headers to reflect this. AfC Berlin --- ciaoTJ ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:48 +0100, Tim Janik wrote: On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Andrew Cowie wrote: This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html In summary, attempting to relicence the library would be, in practise, impossible. No further benefit is gained by discussing this topic further. Updating the glib gtk+ headers to LGPLv3 is not relicensing. Our headers currently state: * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. So, everone is allowed to redistribute [...] under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License [...] version 2 [...] or [...] later, which LGPLv3 fullfills. Accepting LGPLv3 submissions in the future means that the library as a whole would effectively become LGPL = 3 licensed. So then, we might as well adapt our headers to reflect this. My take on it is that it's breaking our interface. I'd fine if we tell the world that we are going to do the switch in three years from now and stick to it, but changing tomorrow is like changing stable API tomorrow. Just deprecate the old license now, remove it in 3, 5, whatever years... -- behdad http://behdad.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
Behdad Esfahbod wrote: My take on it is that it's breaking our interface. I'd fine if we tell the world that we are going to do the switch in three years from now and stick to it, but changing tomorrow is like changing stable API tomorrow. Just deprecate the old license now, remove it in 3, 5, whatever years... When is 3.0 supposed to go out? Looks like natural point to upgrade the license to me. After all, it will be backward incompatible in some ways, so one more backward-incompatibility, one less... Paul ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
Re: Move to LGPL3
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My take on it is that it's breaking our interface. I'd fine if we tell the world that we are going to do the switch in three years from now and stick to it, but changing tomorrow is like changing stable API tomorrow. Just deprecate the old license now, remove it in 3, 5, whatever years... I agree with that. It probably doesn't have to be multiple years, and a 3.0 release might be a natural point for such a change. Here is the matrix of doom, btw: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#GPLCompatibilityMatrix ___ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
