On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Alexandre Franke
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Bastien Nocera
> wrote:
> > That's fine. The license of the compound work just has to be compatible
> > with the individual files' licenses, it doesn't need to be the exact
> > same one.
> > For example
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> That's fine. The license of the compound work just has to be compatible
> with the individual files' licenses, it doesn't need to be the exact
> same one.
> For example, you can have a project mixing GPLv2+, GPLv3+ and BSD
> licensed files,
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 07:56 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Carlos Soriano via
> desktop-devel-list wrote:
> > This is done now in
> > https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/commit/?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc
> > 0248dd05b17cb78252a788
>
> I don’t think that’s suffici
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Yeah maybe it's not sufficient. I can just create a custom LICENSE file that
> says "license is in every file, all of them conpatible with gpl3+" or go
> berseker and relicense every file to gpl3.
Hmm no?
What you currently have is:
* a p
Yeah maybe it's not sufficient. I can just create a custom LICENSE file
that says "license is in every file, all of them conpatible with gpl3+" or
go berseker and relicense every file to gpl3.
What notice do you mean? The license blurp in every file?
On Tue., 18 Jul. 2017, 07:56 Alexandre Franke,
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Carlos Soriano via
desktop-devel-list wrote:
> This is done now in
> https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/commit/?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc0248dd05b17cb78252a788
I don’t think that’s sufficient though. Putting a LICENSE file in the
project directory just addresses t
This is done now in
https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/commit/?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc0248dd05b17cb78252a788
Thanks all for the input!
Best,
Carlos Soriano
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
> Local Time: May 28, 2017 3:30 PM
> UTC
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:20:49PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 12:08 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> > For LGPL -> GPL, you need the explicit approval of all copyright
> > holders.
>
> No, you don't. It says right in the license that you can use LGPL
> sources as GPL if y
On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 12:08 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:59:02AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > For now we won't relicense the files, since that would require
> > copyright holders to agree (iiuc). Instead is the project that will
> > become GPL3+, since the combina
Ah thanks Luis, I'll take that into account
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
Original Message
On 28 May 2017, 13:01, Luis Menina wrote:
Hi,
Le 25/05/2017 à 14:48, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list a écrit :
> Thanks Michael, looks interesting and seems there are enough reasons t
Hi,
Le 25/05/2017 à 14:48, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list a écrit :
Thanks Michael, looks interesting and seems there are enough reasons to
upgrade files too.
We can take a look after we "assume" the project license is gpl3+ and no
problem arises.
in any case, if you choose to change e
Thanks Michael, looks interesting and seems there are enough reasons to upgrade
files too.
We can take a look after we "assume" the project license is gpl3+ and no
problem arises.
Best,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
The project, not everyfile. It's more like accepting that Nautilus is gpl3+ now
since some files are gpl3+ already. That's what I mean by re licensing.
Best,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 25, 2017 12:36 P
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list
wrote:
Aha!
I still get different opinions from different people on that. But
that makes sense to me. Probably makes sense to relicense the files
too at some point, but that would be a later decision.
Do you know any advan
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:10:56AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> I still get different opinions from different people on that. But that
> makes sense to me. Probably makes sense to relicense the files too at
> some point, but that would be a later decision.
> Do you know any advantage of relicensi
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 25, 2017 12:08 PM
UTC Time: May 25, 2017 10:08 AM
From: swil...@gnome.org
To: Carlos Soriano
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:59:02AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> For now we won't relic
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:59:02AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> For now we won't relicense the files, since that would require
> copyright holders to agree (iiuc). Instead is the project that will
> become GPL3+, since the combination of GPL2+ + GPL3+ files results in
> a project that is GPL3+.
ssage
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 25, 2017 11:55 AM
UTC Time: May 25, 2017 9:55 AM
From: swil...@gnome.org
To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
Hi,
Just to mention that I've written two scripts that ease changing license
headers:
- gcu-multi-line-substitu
Hi,
Just to mention that I've written two scripts that ease changing license
headers:
- gcu-multi-line-substitution
- gcu-smart-c-comment-substitution
available at:
https://github.com/swilmet/gnome-c-utils
Cheers,
Sébastien
___
desktop-devel-list maili
Hi,
I usually find the Compatibility Matrix very useful when thinking about
licensing issues. Since I have not seen it in this thread yet, I thought
I would post the link:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
Cheers
Sebastian
On 19/05/17 00:05, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On T
mean something in particular by "more difficult"?
Best regards,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 19, 2017 6:29 AM
UTC Time: May 19, 2017 4:29 AM
From: awal...@gnome.org
To: Ernestas Kulik
Gnome Release Team
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
Ah yes, my bad. For some reason my mind didn't accept the "GPL2-only is
compatible with GPL2+". All clear now.
Original Message ----
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:05 AM
UTC Time: May 18, 2017 10:05 PM
From: had...@hadess
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 th
, I checked the extensions dependencies in a quick
look and look fine (>= GPL+2).
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 18, 2017 9:29 PM
UTC Time: May 18, 2017 7:29 PM
From: had...@hadess.net
To: Carlos Soriano , Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
rele
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 "
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?
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 18, 2017 7:
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+
Ah good catch, thanks!
The copyright is holded by only one person, so he can freely change it the
plugin is still maintained.
Best regards,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 18, 2017 6:54 PM
UTC Time: May 18, 2017 4:54
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 lo
Carlos Soriano
Original Message ----
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 17, 2017 6:49 PM
UTC Time: May 17, 2017 4:49 PM
From: nico...@ndufresne.ca
To: Frederic Crozat , nautilus-l...@gnome.org
release-t...@gnome.org, desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
Le mercredi 17 mai 201
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 t
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+)
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.
Best regards,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 17, 2017
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
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
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
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-enc
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 se
(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
40 matches
Mail list logo
