On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:41 PM, rick c <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you for the page, Owen. I had hoped the licensing discussions > were at an end, but evidently not. > > On Dec 3, 7:14 pm, "Chris Meller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I explained on IRC [1], I don't think it's right to refuse to accept > GPL > > code to the -extras repository, since the GPLv3 is compatible with the > ASL. > > If we want to hold Habari core to a higher standard, that's one thing. > > Holding Extras to that higher standard doesn't make any sense and > seriously > > limits its usefulness. > > > > Take, for example, some of the plugins Skippy has written lately... They > > include GPL code and so aren't included in Extras. Just today, moeffju > was > > on IRC wanting to fix the plugin for the new ACL changes and wasn't able > to > > because only Skippy is able to maintain them. > > > > Likewise, michaeltwofish earlier mentioned wanting to port some themes to > > Habari, but not having the desire to commit to them as the sole > maintainer. > > Disallowing GPLv3 from Extras causes these problems. > > > > On a less "legal" or "technical" note, I just find that it rubs me the > wrong > > way to say "We allow ASL or ASL-compatible code... oh, except the GPL. We > > don't like the GPL and won't let you play in our sandbox with it." > > > > I'll willingly say I don't like the GPL.
That really couldn't be further from the issue. I don't like it either, but that doesn't matter in the slightest here. > Part of the problem is that > the GPL does say it "won't let you play in our sandbox" regarding > other licenses. If any part of a piece of software uses GPL, my > understanding is that the entire piece of software has to be licensed > under the GPL. To quote from your third reference. > > "..both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, "If > you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger > program must be under this license too." > > I would hardly call that playing well with others. So we should reciprocate? Because two wrongs make a right? > Further, the ASF position is to specifically disallow inclusion of > code in Apache products which uses any version of the GPL or LGPL > license ( http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ). If the ASF > doesn't feel comfortable using GPL or LGPL code in ASL projects, I'd > feel more comfortable if we didn't do so either, even though your > third reference says the GPL3 is compatible with the ASL. There is > obviously a disconnect between the two parties. So three wrongs? > GPL software has it's place, but providing server space for it would, > in my opinion, be counterproductive to encouraging people to use the > ASL. Very rarely are people "encouraged" by force. You can almost liken this to the "viral" properties that made GPLv2 so bad. We're imposing our own "viral" requirement for the ASL by dictating that everything else be ASL as well. Bad mojo, baaaaddddd mojo. > I agree with Michael that simplicity and clarity have a lot going for > them. The ambiguity surrounding the compatibility between the GPL3/ > LGPL and the ASL has engendered way too much discussion, enough to > show the situation isn't as clear as you may think. Except that it is, and there are numerous sources saying it is. If we've had discussions on this, it's out of ignorance or stubbornness. >From Apache itself: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Note that the primary focus here is on eliminating software patents, which was also a primary focus of the "Why GPL3?" page I referenced earlier from gnu.org. As early as June, 2007, from an article about Richard Stallman urging people to upgrade to v3: "Stallman also noted that GPLv3 is now compatible with the Apache 2.0 license" http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3686486 And finally, from everyone's favorite source, with more references: "The Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation agree that the Apache License 2.0 is a free software licence, compatible with version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#GPL_compatibility > If the two primary > parties ever agree, inclusion of GPL/LGPL works may be worth > revisiting, but for now the lack of clarity is enough to warrant not > allowing them. > There *is* no lack of clarity. I suspect anyone who thinks there is of being totally illiterate. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
