On 24 July 2014 13:14, Tino Didriksen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've looked a bit at the license information for trunk pairs to make sure I
> get the package information correct, and it's quite a mess. For most pairs,
> I don't know what to do.
>
> The license is generally not applied to any of the files, so I can only go
> by COPYING which is GPLv2-or-later or GPLv3-or-later. Sometimes autogen.sh
> is the only file saying anything, and it says GPLv2-only, but since that's
> usually just a copy from another pair, does it really speak for the pair?
>
autogen.sh does not speak for the pair, as it is only involved in
building the data and is not part of it, per se. (Including autogen.sh
is 'mere aggregation' in the GPL's terms).
> If a pair or source language truly is GPLv2-only, then that is internally
> incompatible with other pairs that are GPLv3-or-later.
>
> E.g. #1, apertium-sme-nob is licensed GPLv3-or-later, but depends on
> apertium-nob which is unclear. apertium-nob.nob.dix says "GPL only", which
> means what? GPLv1-only? Or any GPL version 1 through inf?
>
> E.g. #2, apertium-isl-eng's COPYING also says GPLv3-or-later, but autogen.sh
> says GPLv2-only and lexchoicebil.xsl says GPLv2-or-later.
>
> E.g. #3 & #4, apertium-en-es and apertium-en-ca's COPYING says
> GPLv2-or-later, but autogen.sh says GPLv2-only. But then alt.xsl,
> translate-to-default-equivalent.xsl, filter.xsl, filterbil.xsl says
> GPLv2-or-later. This is the case where Jim said there was nothing to say 'or
> later', but if I were to look at this then the majority of the files do
> clearly indicate GPLv2-or-later.
>
Again, these files are only involved in building the data ('mere
aggregation'). The data themselves have so such indication, nor is
there any such indication in a 'README', 'LICENSE' or other such file
(i.e., where it has been established by convention that licensing
information is to be found). That some of the (auxiliary) files
explicitly allow 'or later' applies to those files only: exceptions
are exceptions, not the rule.
>
> So, please check your pairs and dependencies for any and all references to
> GPL and make sure they agree. I used this egrep for quick overview:
> egrep -rH '(General Public)|(at your option)|(GPL)' *
>
> How to apply GPL to your files: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
> search for "more than one file". Where possible, stuff something like that
> in a comment header of the file. For example, for an XML dix for the
> apertium-abc-def pair where comments are <!-- -->, this would suffice:
> http://codepad.org/PnZEJiNH - adjust for version 2 where needed.
This would be a great improvement; however, it's only this
straightforward when the person doing this is the sole author, or if
it's a mere clarification of the existing terms. In the en-es case,
for example, it would be a relicensing from (implicit) GPL2-only to
(explicit) GPL2-or-later, which requires the approval of a number of
authors. Many of the other packages have the same circumstances.
If there is to be a mass relicensing, I would urge CC-BY-SA: database
rights are a real thing in the EU, and the GPL has no provision for
them (nor should it: it's a software licence, not a content licence),
while CC-BY-SA explicitly disclaims them. (Also, compatibility with
Wikimedia projects would be A Good Thing.)
--
<Sefam> Are any of the mentors around?
<jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
