I think I may have misunderstood Dan's post and given a too hasty reply. Do we need some discussion on the merits of GPL version 2 or higher versus GPL version 3 or higher before continuing the vote on part 2 of the proposed licensing? Does anyone have an opinion on the matter one way or the other? Or any insights to offer?
Thanks, Karen ----- "Karen Collier" <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the intent of using the GPL, at least in my eyes, was to keep > the Evergreen code base and any code in the documentation in sync as > far as licensing goes. It was purely by accident that I linked to a > specific version of the GPL, and that it turned out not to be the one > the Evergreen code uses. Oops! > > Let's continue the vote with the understanding that we're referring to > the same version of the GPL that the Evergreen code base uses. For > simplicity, let's have those who have already voted, speak up only if > this clarification changes your vote. Is this agreeable? > > Thanks for pointing this out Dan. I'll be sure to use your language > when I put together official licensing statements. > > Karen > > ----- "Dan Scott" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:06 -0500, Karen Collier wrote: > > > As discussed at the Documentation Interest Group Meeting on > > December, 9, 2009, I am calling for a vote on Documentation > Licensing. > > Members of the Documentation Interest Group and interested members > of > > the Evergreen Community, please vote yes or no on the following > > proposals by Monday, January 4, 2009 by replying to this email on > the > > Evergreen Documentation mailing list > > ([email protected]). > > > > > > 1 - Official Evergreen Documentation produced by the > Documentation > > Interest Group should be licensed under the Creative Commons > > Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License > > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/). > > > > > > 2 - Any code included in the official documentation produced by > the > > Documentation Interest Group should also be made available under > the > > GNU GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html). > > > > I have to point out one small technicality; the version of the GNU > > GPL > > that is linked to is the GPL v3.0, whereas the OpenSRF and > Evergreen > > code is GPL v2 or later (I _think_ we've applied the "or, at your > > option, any later version" redistribution clause consistently, when > > we > > have included the license header in source files). > > > > Oddly enough, the GPL v2 and GPL v3.0 are incompatible according to > > the > > creators of those licenses; to use code licensed under "GPL v2 or > > later" > > with GPL v3.0 code, one must choose the "or later" option and > > relicense > > the code under the GPL v3.0. > > > > I'm not opposed to the GPL v3.0 - among its benefits, it adds > > explicit > > patent grants where the GPL v2 only carries an implicit patent > grant, > > and is written to comply with copyright laws worldwide instead of > > only > > American copyright law - but we might want to keep the same "GPL > v2, > > or > > at your option, any later version" redistribution clause for the > code > > in > > the documentation, simply to keep it in sync with the OpenSRF / > > Evergreen code base. Then, if at some point the project opts to > move > > to > > the GPL v3, we can bring the documentation along too. > > > > My apologies for not providing this clarification earlier. Can we > > consider the following a friendly amendment to the proposals? > > > > Change: > > > > 2 - Any code included in the official documentation produced by the > > Documentation Interest Group should also be made available under > the > > GNU > > GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html). > > > > To: > > > > 2 - Any code included in the official documentation produced by the > > Documentation Interest Group should also be made available under > the > > GNU > > GPL version 2 > > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html), > > including the "or, at your option, any later version" > redistribution > > clause. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation > > -- > Karen Collier > Public Services Librarian > Kent County Public Library > 408 High Street > Chestertown, MD 21620 > 410-778-3636 > _______________________________________________ > OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation -- Karen Collier Public Services Librarian Kent County Public Library 408 High Street Chestertown, MD 21620 410-778-3636 _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
