Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[A. Walton]

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Ernestas Kulik  wrote:
> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
>
> Hi,
>
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> GPLv3+.
>
> The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under its
> terms, so our options are quite limited here.
>
> The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in turn
> disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is not
> meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.
>
> If there are no objections, we will make the switch in the following
> week, most likely.

My primary objection is not ideological, but practical - relicensing
Nautilus GPLv3+ means that it becomes more difficult to promote code
from Nautilus to Gtk+, which has happened a significant number of
times in the past and I expect it will continue some into the future.

Stacked with the other reasons (plugins, etc), it just doesn't seem
like a very good idea.

-Andrew Walton.

> Regards,
> Ernestas
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-l...@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 15:47 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Maybe I didn't explain well. Emilio points out there could one one of
> those extensions that say GPL2+ to link to a GPL2-only library. But
> that would make the extension itself GPL2 anyway, and it's License
> file would have to reflect that initially.

Again, it wouldn't. The combined work would be GPLv2-only, but each one
of the items keeps its own license. The licenses are compatible.

You don't have to have an piece of code depending on the exact same
version of the license if those licenses are compatible. GPLv2-only is
compatible with GPLv2+, as the license mentions for that dependency
says:
"either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version."

The selection is "made" automatically when you run those 2 items in the
same memory address space (eg. when you "link" them).

> It's just a hipotetical case, I checked the extensions dependencies
> in a quick look and look fine (>= GPL+2).
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 13:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-
list wrote:
> Wouldn't that make the actual extension GPL2-but-not-GPL3 comaptible
> since the start, and therefore cannot be GPL2+ project and therefore
> its License file would need to reflect that?

No. nautilus' license says "GPLv2 or later". The extension's license
says "GPLv2 only".

When you combine both licenses into the final product/memory address
space (the "linking" mentioned in the GPL license) you end up with a
"combined work" license of GPLv2.

So it was compatible, but wouldn't be any more.

As mentioned on IRC, I think that the original intent of using the LGPL
for the libnautilus-extensions library was to allow non-GPL-compatible
extensions to link into nautilus, at will. It's not like you could link
to the extensions library without also eventually linking to nautilus
itself...

If that were the case, and that might require some digging to talk to
the original authors, then you might be able to mention this in the
extensions document that was recently (and erroneously) removed.

HTH
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

On 18/05/17 18:22, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> After asking some authors of the current code that we have as GPL3+ inside 
> nautilus, and pondering for a while, I realized the practicity of moving away 
> from that code or convince those authors to relicense as GPL2+ is more a 
> burden 
> than the real benefit.
> 
> The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday 
> discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only 
> cannot 
> be used anymore.
> Keep in mind GPL2+ are fine.
> 
> Said this, I took a look at extensions which are not retired from distros and 
> that have seen a release in at least the last 3 years. So far they are:
> nautilus-dropbox - GPL3+
> nautilus-image-converter - GPL2+
> nautilus-pastebin - GPL2+
> nautilus-python - GPL2+
> nautilus-search-tool - GPL2+
> nautilus-sendto - GPL2+
> nautilus-terminal - GPL2+
> 
> Which is completely fine.

As someone already mentioned, if any of those extensions links to a
non-GPL3-compatible library, then they won't be compatible with a GPL3+
nautilus. In other words, extensions are now forbidden from linking to
GPL2-but-not-GPL3-compatible libraries. I don't know whether there are any
examples of extensions that do this. Just thought I'd point this out so the
final decision is an informed one.

Cheers,
Emilio
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Michael Biebl]

017-05-18 18:22 GMT+02:00 Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list
:

> The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday
> discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only
> cannot be used anymore.
> Keep in mind GPL2+ are fine.
>
> Said this, I took a look at extensions which are not retired from distros
> and that have seen a release in at least the last 3 years. So far they are:
> nautilus-dropbox - GPL3+
> nautilus-image-converter - GPL2+
> nautilus-pastebin - GPL2+
> nautilus-python - GPL2+
> nautilus-search-tool - GPL2+
> nautilus-sendto - GPL2+
> nautilus-terminal - GPL2+

I found the tortoise-hg plugin in the Debian archive, which seems to
be GPL2 only
https://sources.debian.net/src/tortoisehg/4.0-1/contrib/nautilus-thg.py/


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Nicolas Dufresne]

Le mercredi 17 mai 2017 à 14:55 +, Frederic Crozat a écrit :
> Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik  a
> écrit :
> > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite
> > complicated, I
> > and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> > GPLv3+.
> > 
> > The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> > GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under
> > its
> > terms, so our options are quite limited here.
> > 
> > The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> > extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in
> > turn
> > disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is
> > not
> > meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> > relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.
> 
> I know at least one proprietary extension  for Nautilus (integration
> with Synology NAS product) and I'm not sure we should prevent
> proprietary extensions to be used for Nautilus.

You can just mimic Totem exception clause. This is used to allow
proprietary GStreamer plugins.

https://git.gnome.org/browse/totem/tree/COPYING#n345

regards,
Nicolas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:13 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> There are few by error.
> The important cases are lineup-parameters used for uncrustify, and
> the threatics part from gnome-builder.
> However, we already spent time on implementing our own thing in the
> past with git-archive-all (GPLv3+) when meson couldn't handle it, so
> I would like to prevent this from happening again and avoid us the
> work with asking few upstreams to relicense based on our needs, and
> rather switch to GPL3+ where most of the tools are.

I don't understand what git-archive-all has to do with this. Is the
problem that some of the tools you ship are GPLv3? That doesn't mean
the rest of the module has to be...
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Ernestas Kulik]

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:20 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> 
> If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only
> or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions.

That’s fair.

> I'm also not opening the
> can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
> (such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins), because
> that's an existing problem.

Loading GPL-incompatibly-licensed extensions is already a problem. For
all I know, it always was.

> What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
> license cause that require a relicense?

The end goal here is to announce what has been the case since at least
two years ago (sans libnautilus-extension). We’ve got code that is
licensed under GPLv3+ and we’ve wanted to use code licensed under
GPLv3+, but, ironically, didn’t, because of these issues.

Having libnautilus-extension licensed under LGPL makes no sense if the
extensions have to be compatible with GPL when loaded.
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 09:45 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera  
> wrote:
> > If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-
> > only
> > or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening
> > the
> > can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
> > (such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins),
> > because
> > that's an existing problem.
> > 
> > What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
> > license cause that require a relicense?
> > 
> > Cheers
> 
> Sounds like the license is already GPLv3+, since it uses GPLv3+
> source 
> files, and the existing GPLv2+ notices are incorrect or misleading.

Were those licenses applied in error, or imported from projects that
were GPLv3 themselves?
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Frederic Crozat]

Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik  a écrit :

> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
>
> Hi,
>
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> GPLv3+.
>
> The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under its
> terms, so our options are quite limited here.
>
> The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in turn
> disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is not
> meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.
>

I know at least one proprietary extension  for Nautilus (integration with
Synology NAS product) and I'm not sure we should prevent
proprietary extensions to be used for Nautilus.

-- 

-- 
Frédéric Crozat
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera  
wrote:

If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only
or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening the
can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
(such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins), because
that's an existing problem.

What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
license cause that require a relicense?

Cheers


Sounds like the license is already GPLv3+, since it uses GPLv3+ source 
files, and the existing GPLv2+ notices are incorrect or misleading.


Michael

___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 17:01 +0300, Ernestas Kulik wrote:
> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated,
> I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> GPLv3+.
> 
> The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under
> its
> terms, so our options are quite limited here.
> 
> The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in
> turn
> disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is not
> meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.

If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only
or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening the
can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
(such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins), because
that's an existing problem.

What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
license cause that require a relicense?

Cheers
___
release-team@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.