On 21/04/2019 20:59, Bryan Gonzalez wrote:
> Im away from pc at moment. (Driving Uber) but I did see that LinuxFromScratch
> is taken...
>
> https://github.com/LinuxFromScratch/linuxfromscratch
>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 2:08 PM Bryan Gonzalez <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Is LinuxFromScratch already taken? Or is that too pretentious since this
> is actually just ALFS?
>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 1:20 PM Pierre Labastie <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> On 21/04/2019 18:07, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 11:37 AM Pierre Labastie
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've read a little more about this [1], and wants to summarize here
> what I
> >> understand. Note that I've not checked that what I say is valid in
> countries
> >> other than US (I've just seen yesterday, when looking at W3m, that
> a true open
> >> source license is impossible in Japan). jhalfs has been based in US
> from its
> >> beginning, so let us consider it is under the US law:
> >> - All contributors are copyright holders. There's no need to
> register to be a
> >> copyright holder, and there is no notion of a minimum contribution
> to be a
> >> copyright holder. Actually, all contributors have made substantial
> >> contributions, so the point about minimal contribution is not
> relevant here.
> >> - If there is no license, nobody has right to use, distribute,
> modify, parts
> >> he or she has not written, unless given explicit permission! Even
> other
> >> contributors have no right to modify what is already written! This
> is the aim
> >> of the license to relax such permissions.
> >> - Jeremy, the initiator of the project has chosen the GPLv2
> license, so all
> >> contributions are under this license. Changing to another license
> is possible
> >> only if the new license is compatible with the previous one,
> unless the
> >> copyright holders agree to change to an incompatible license. Here,
> the only
> >> compatible license is GPLv3. AGPLv3 is not (too restrictive),
> LGPLv3 is not
> >> (too permissive), and other common licenses (MIT, Apache, Mozilla)
> are too
> >> permissive too. At this point, we have two possibilities:
> >> - go to GPLv3 (or keep GLPv2, but it is not well suited to
> modern ways of
> >> collaborating).
> >> - Ask the seven contributors whether they accept a more
> permissive license
> >> (I would push for MIT. Other licenses are not very sensible
> for jhalfs).
> >
> > My preference would be to try this first, seeking permission to move
> > to MIT. If that fails what issue is there with keeping GPLv2? I
> > believe a move to Github does not really impact the license and I'm
> > not really a huge fan of GPLv3, although admittedly it's been a
> while
> > since I looked at its details. Overall, I think it's just more
> complex
> > that it needs to be. I like the simplicity of MIT or BSD licenses.
> >
> >> - Gihub has two types of repo:
> >> - private, means a few collaborators (maximum of 4 with free
> github) can
> >> access the repository, but it is not visible to anybody else
> >> - public, means it is visible to anybody, and anybody can be
> given commits
> >> right, but there are again to possibilities:
> >> - owned by an individual, who has all the administrative
> rights.
> >> - owned by an organization. Means there may be several
> owners, which
> >> may give various rights to users (administration, commit,
> etc, I've
> >> not read it in full yet)
> >
> > Private would make it hard to collaborate and I think kind of
> defeats
> > the purpose. Given the history of ALFS, I'd say an organization (you
> > can create one and invite others to be admins) makes the most sense.
>
> OK, I'll send a mail to all the other five contributors (I think I can
> consider having Jeremy's agreement, and mine). I agree with creating
> an
> organization. Ideas for name?
>
Well, maybe bad news: I've investigated a little more the GPLv2 license: the
section 2 Stipulates:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties _under the terms of this License_
(emphasis by me)
In clear, the whole work should be GPL v2... But I see a lot of projects with
a permissive license, and using GPLv2 code, so either they infringe the
license, or there is something I do not understand...
Well, there is a part of the GPLv2 license telling:
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission.
Maybe that has been done for the projects I see, which include GPL'd parts
into programs subjected to a more permissive license.
So before making the move to the MIT, I need to get rid of the menu interface
(I'll try the interface proposed by Jeremy in one of his posts, which is
licensed under a BSD derived license). Also I'll give away farce, since Ken
does not want to change the license.
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
