On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 11:16:08PM -0500, Martin Blais wrote: > > The license at the root of the project applies. > > Do I need to repeat the license in each and every file? > > I used to do that on some other projects, didn't bother for this project. > > That is recommended only if you care about code reuse patterns such as > "taking a file from beancount and using it elsewhere", but is not > strictly needed. > > What is needed is writing somewhere what the applicable license is, and > having the text of GPL2 top-level is *not* enough. Most notably because > having it doesn't say if it's "GPL version 2 (only)" or "GPL version 2 > or (at your option) any later version". The text of the GPL license > itself recommend specifying that in license headers; if you don't do so, > for whatever reason, you need to find another way (e.g., the README). > > > Yes, it's v2. > > No strong opinions about moving it to v3, I just don't have time to > review > > the implications. > > Sorry to be pedantic, but this still doesn't answer my question: is it > "2 only" or "2 or later"? In passing, I note that "2 or later" is in > fact a step in between what you write here, as it will be usable *both* > as "v2" and as "v3", depending on the needs of people. > > Given how useful as an accounting library Beancount is, I have hard time > believing that no one will ever need to use it in combination with some > "v3" code, so I really think that "v2 or above" is the choice that is in > the best interest of the project, but of course it's your call. > So reading about this more, I have to say, I tend to agree about Linus' views on GPLv2 or later so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU In a sense, you have more freedom with GPLv2 only. I also don't want to impose my views on others. For me, the reason to go "or later" would be practical ones, like, most of the code out there being v2 or later and not being able to build on top because of this. (More reading...) > After much reading about this, I'm still set on having something like the > > Clojure project (and many others) with a signed CA for contributions > beyond > > a few LOC. This hasn't been a problem yet, because most of the > > contributions are done upstream in the fava project (lots of activity > > there!). So far I've tried to respond to their needs myself and implement > > core changes when they need them. Note: It's still a GPL'ed project, and > as > > always, my intent is for it to remain free forever. > > > > I remember the license issue used to be somewhat of a problem for you, > and > > I have no solution to offer. > > Right now the license is a problem only in the sense that I'm not clear > on what that is and, for instance, I wouldn't be able to package > Beancount for Debian until that is clarified, but we're converging there :) > > CAA/CLA OTOH, when you end up putting it in place, will be a "problem" > for me only in the sense that I will never sign a copyright transfer (or > similar) in order to contribute code. But of course I'll live with it, > either keeping local patches when needed, or trying to convince you to > reimplement the same features yourself :-) But this certainly won't stop > me from using Beancount as the beautiful piece of FOSS accounting tool > that it is. > > > You'll have to decide for yourself whether ideology trumps > > practicality. > > I didn't want to discuss politics here, but since you raised it: I'm > convinced it's not a matter of ideology, but of long-term strategy. > These kind of choices shape the structure of the community you want to > build around Beancount, with far reaching implications on the long term > sustainability of the project. But, again, I'm not complaining (I've > already done it in the past :-)) or anything, I'm just trying to clarify > and reach a final point on discussions that I perceived as still > ongoing. > > Thanks, > -- > Stefano Zacchiroli . [email protected] . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o > Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o > Former Debian Project Leader . OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . > « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Beancount" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/beancount/20161114072454.pj63gb56ydvpdqvq%40upsilon.cc. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beancount" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhN7kOUoBTgp_B_TavVb%3DYFE90RAUEkux3JTUSvAaVYMMw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
