Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com writes: On 2011-05-20 4:46 PM, Stephen Leake wrote: GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out for almost 4 years. Can you elaborate? I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I don't understand what you mean by premature. Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2). It is my impression that the former body of code is much larger than the latter, and it is my opinion that we should not switch as long as that remains the case. If everyone adopts this attitude, no one will ever switch to GPLv3. And we would not be using GPLv2+ now; we'd be stuck with GPLv1. Since we have benefited so much from the Gnu packages and the FSF licenses, I think we have a duty to move to GPLv3, since it gives better support for software freedom. Free Software is a community effort; everyone has to do their part. We only need to consider packages that we currently use, and those that might be useful in the future for monotone. Using new packages seems a remote possibility, since we are fairly mature. So I think this deserves some more attention. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html gives a list of licenses known to be compatible with GPL (3 is implied). Actual licenses for packages we currently use (from INSTALL_windows_native.text): MinGW a varied collection. c:/MinGW/doc/runtime/DISCLAIMER says the main runtime library is public domain. I'll assume GPLv3+, but it could be a lot of work to prove that (same amount of work to prove GPLv2+). On Linux, the runtime is mostly Gnu packages, which are GPLv3+ compatible. So I'll assume GPLv3+ there as well. Getting a precise library dependency list from Depends.exe or ldd would be the next step to refine this. Boost Boost Software License (http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt). GPLv3+ compatible according to [1]. Lua MIT license, which is an overloaded name according to [1]. http://www.lua.org/license.html is the same as the Boost license; GPLv3+ compatible. pcreUniversity of Cambridge; similar to Boost; GPLv3+ compatible botan /MinGW/include/botan.h says Botan license. http://botan.randombit.net/ says BSD license. http://botan.randombit.net/license.html gives a license. This appears to be the modified BSD license mentioned on [1] (no advertising clause). GPLv3+ compatible. sqlite3 /MinGW/include/sqlite3.h says The author disclaims copyright. So it's public domain; GPLv3+ compatible. libidn Gnu package; GPLv3+ compatible. libiconvGnu package; GPLv3+ compatible. gettext Gnu package; GPLv3+ compatible. libz/MinGW/include/zlib.h gives a license similar to Boost; GPLv3+ compatible C++ runtime Gnu package; GPLv3+ compatible So GPLv3+ is fine for the current set of packages. What sort of package might we be using in the future? -- -- Stephe ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 07:18:21PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Hendrik Boom hend...@topoi.pooq.com wrote: Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2). GLP2+ is compatible with GPL2. GLP2+ is compatible with GPL3. I said v2-only. Yes, we're in agreement. The v2-only item was at the end of my first sentence. The mtn code should be GPL2+, mentioned at the start of both sentences. Sorry if that wasn't clear. -- hendrik ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
Stephen Leake stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org writes: Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com writes: On 2011-05-20 4:46 PM, Stephen Leake wrote: GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out for almost 4 years. Can you elaborate? I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I don't understand what you mean by premature. Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2). It is my impression that the former body of code is much larger than the latter, and it is my opinion that we should not switch as long as that remains the case. If everyone adopts this attitude, no one will ever switch to GPLv3. And we would not be using GPLv2+ now; we'd be stuck with GPLv1. +1 Since we have benefited so much from the Gnu packages and the FSF licenses, I think we have a duty to move to GPLv3, since it gives better support for software freedom. +1 I recommend that the relicensing to GPLv2+ that Stephe approved apply to monotone 1.0 but that the next published release of monotone migrate to GPLv3+. -- Ludovic Brenta. ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Hendrik Boom hend...@topoi.pooq.com wrote: On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 07:18:21PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Hendrik Boom hend...@topoi.pooq.com wrote: Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2). GLP2+ is compatible with GPL2. GLP2+ is compatible with GPL3. I said v2-only. Yes, we're in agreement. The v2-only item was at the end of my first sentence. The mtn code should be GPL2+, mentioned at the start of both sentences. I misunderstood you. Sorry about that. I agree with your assessment. ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com writes: I think that migration to GPLv3 remains premature at this time, and we should relicense the v3 files down to v2. Why premature? GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out for almost 4 years. Can you elaborate? I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I don't understand what you mean by premature. -- -- Stephe ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
On 2011-05-20 4:46 PM, Stephen Leake wrote: GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out for almost 4 years. Can you elaborate? I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I don't understand what you mean by premature. Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2). It is my impression that the former body of code is much larger than the latter, and it is my opinion that we should not switch as long as that remains the case. zw ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 04:53:59PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: On 2011-05-20 4:46 PM, Stephen Leake wrote: GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out for almost 4 years. Can you elaborate? I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I don't understand what you mean by premature. Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2). GLP2+ is compatible with GPL2. GLP2+ is compatible with GPL3. -- hendrik ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Hendrik Boom hend...@topoi.pooq.com wrote: Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2). GLP2+ is compatible with GPL2. GLP2+ is compatible with GPL3. I said v2-only. zw ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
In message 4dd6ff17.8070...@panix.com on Fri, 20 May 2011 16:53:59 -0700, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com said: zackw On 2011-05-20 4:46 PM, Stephen Leake wrote: zackw GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out zackw for zackw almost 4 years. zackw zackw Can you elaborate? zackw zackw I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I zackw don't understand what you mean by premature. zackw zackw Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body zackw of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in zackw particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us zackw license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds zackw restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2). zackw zackw It is my impression that the former body of code is much larger than zackw the latter, and it is my opinion that we should not switch as long as zackw that remains the case. This discussion is the exact reason that a move to GPLv3 (or GPLv3+) is premature. It shows that we need to have a good look at the concequences before making that move. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte rich...@levitte.org http://richard.levitte.org/ Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited! -- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
[Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
Hi!
This is a follow-up on
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684822, where I was asked
to clarify the license of the openSUSE monotone package.
Currently, this is stating GPLv2+, but the reporter needs some
clarification because we have some GPLv3+ code in the package
(src/{unix,win32}/parse_date.cc). From the original ticket:
---
oS:
| // Copyright (C) $YEAR $OWNERL
| //
| // This program is made available under the GNU GPL version 3.0 or
| // greater. See the accompanying file COPYING for details.
| //
| // This program is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the
| // implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
| // PURPOSE.
The file itself is quite short and it looks as if the header may have
been added automatically, but this should be confirmed upstream.
---
me:
The copyright has been clarified with a proper year and owner note in
the most recent version (1.0, released on March 26th). I
submit-requested this new version already, but didn't got an answer so
far (#65356).
The question for me now (from a legal point of view) is whether it is a
problem for you (or anybody else) if a project that is tagged as GPLv2+
has single GPLv3+-licensed files in it?
---
oS:
The question for me now (from a legal point of view) is whether it is
a problem for you (or anybody else) if a project that is tagged as
GPLv2+ has single GPLv3+-licensed files in it?
It is not a problem but it could mean that the entire resulting derived
work would be GPLv3+ rather than GPLv2+. If this is the case, the spec
file should state that the license is GPLv3+.
Therefore, it seems that we need to decide on whether or not the file is:
(a) used at all
(b) used in a copyright relevant way with GPLv2+ code (i.e. is a derived
work created)
(c) correctly licensed under GPLv3+ (i.e. perhaps it was a mistake by
upstream)
If (a) and (b) can be answered in the negative we don't (strictly
speaking) have to answer (c) - though it would be desirable generally.
---
I then answered that the files are used (a) and that it was not an
accident (c), but I'm unsure about the derived work clause. I'm seeing
the following solutions (ordered by impact):
1) document in README or somewhere else that parts of the code use
GPLv3+ and give packagers a hint what license they should use when they
package monotone
2) relicense the mentioned files as GPLv2+
3) relicense everything of mtn GPLv3+
Opinions anyone?
Thomas.
--
GPG-Key 0x160D1092 | tommyd3...@jabber.ccc.de | http://thomaskeller.biz
Please note that according to the EU law on data retention, information
on every electronic information exchange might be retained for a period
of six months or longer: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/?lang=en
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz writes:
Hi!
This is a follow-up on
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684822, where I was asked
to clarify the license of the openSUSE monotone package.
Currently, this is stating GPLv2+, but the reporter needs some
clarification because we have some GPLv3+ code in the package
(src/{unix,win32}/parse_date.cc). From the original ticket:
snip
I then answered that the files are used (a) and that it was not an
accident (c), but I'm unsure about the derived work clause. I'm seeing
the following solutions (ordered by impact):
1) document in README or somewhere else that parts of the code use
GPLv3+ and give packagers a hint what license they should use when they
package monotone
2) relicense the mentioned files as GPLv2+
3) relicense everything of mtn GPLv3+
Opinions anyone?
I put that there, mostly as a response to Richard Stallman's plea for
all Gnu packages to be upgraded to GPL v3 (yes, I know monotone is not a
Gnu package).
I also raised the issue of upgrading the package generally (I can't find
it in the mailing list archive). There was some objection, but not much
discussion.
All authors have already given permission to use GPLv3, since the other
files are GPLv2+.
I think GPLv3 is a better license; it is clearer, and has better
mechanisms for exceptions (not that we need any).
Hmm. src/boost/* are _not_ GPL; they are any use, with notice.
similarly, src/netxx/* are not GPL.
There has been some discussion of the issue of multiple licenses in a
package on the Debian policy list. The consensus seems to be that there
is no such thing as the overall license; each file has its own
license. That is, the unit of reuse is the file, not the package. They
are working on upgrading the package documentation format to make it
easy to describe what license applies to each file.
I think that discussion applies to source distribution. Since we also
distribute a binary, it must have some single license. I have not seen a
discussion of that.
I'm guessing the monotone binary should be GPLv3, since the GPL v3 file
does not say or earlier, and the GPLv2+ and non-GPL files are
compatible with GPL v3.
I don't feel strongly either way; if it makes life simpler, I agree to
relicense src/{unix,win32}/parse_date.cc as GPLv2+.
--
-- Stephe
___
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
I think that migration to GPLv3 remains premature at this time, and we should relicense the v3 files down to v2. zw ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
In message BANLkTi=t-dqrjubpuwvlxx7dkq3b_-x...@mail.gmail.com on Thu, 19 May 2011 07:59:54 -0700, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com said: zackw I think that migration to GPLv3 remains premature at this time, and we zackw should relicense the v3 files down to v2. +1 -- Richard Levitte rich...@levitte.org http://richard.levitte.org/ Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited! -- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
Am 19.05.11 16:59, schrieb Zack Weinberg: Nice to read you! :) I think that migration to GPLv3 remains premature at this time, and we should relicense the v3 files down to v2. +1 from me as well. We probably need to create a patch release with this change, so downstream's license issues are actually reflected properly, right? I don't want to temporarily make the package GPLv3 and wait for the next release to downgrade it again to GPLv2... do we actually have anything for a 1.0.1 release beside this? I came across a few Win32 issues lately, but I have no time to look after them. Thomas. -- GPG-Key 0x160D1092 | tommyd3...@jabber.ccc.de | http://thomaskeller.biz Please note that according to the EU law on data retention, information on every electronic information exchange might be retained for a period of six months or longer: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/?lang=en signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
