Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Russ Allbery]

Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Well, we can't pretend that "the GPL" is GPL-2 forever, so it would be a
> bad idea to keep the GPL pointing to the old license.

> The GPL is there for informative purposes only. Packages under GPLv2 or
> later will still be under GPLv2 or later, and the fact that we say "the
> latest GPL is in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL" in the copyright file
> should not be interpreted as a relicensing. Moreover, the GPL-2 will
> still be there as far as it's a "common license".

Right.  So what I think we should do is deprecate that symlink and that
language, which addresses all of those problems without introducing the
new problem of pointing all packages that don't specify a version at the
latest and greatest GPL instead of the version that the package actually
references.

In the meantime, the least harm seems to me to be to keep the symlink
pointing to the GPL-2, since that's what it meant when all the packages
currently using that language and link started using it.  Packages that
are licensed under GPL-3 and later need changes to their debian/copyright
files anyway and can update to point to the appropriate file.

The root problem here, in my opinion, is that we have a ton of packages in
Debian that were sloppy about GPL versions in their copyright file because
there was only one version of general interest at the time.  The solution
is to get less sloppy.

> What is clear is that packages under GPLv2 (without "or later") should
> point to the GPL-2, not to the symlink. Packages not doing that are
> already buggy and we should start fixing them.

I think we can all agree on this, yes.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Santiago Vila]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Russ Allbery:
>
> > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
> >
> >>> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
> >>> later" under the GPL version 3?
> >
> >>> And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
> >>> version 3 or later"?
> >
> >> If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the
> >> *earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.
> >
> > Wholeheartedly agreed.  I don't understand the rationale for doing
> > anything different.
>
> Same here.  My conclusion is that the GPL symlink should not be
> changed.  Policy can still deprecate the symlink, but the actual
> content should not be update for GPLv3.

Well, we can't pretend that "the GPL" is GPL-2 forever, so it
would be a bad idea to keep the GPL pointing to the old license.

The GPL is there for informative purposes only. Packages under GPLv2
or later will still be under GPLv2 or later, and the fact that we
say "the latest GPL is in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL" in the copyright
file should not be interpreted as a relicensing. Moreover, the GPL-2
will still be there as far as it's a "common license".

What is clear is that packages under GPLv2 (without "or later") should
point to the GPL-2, not to the symlink. Packages not doing that are
already buggy and we should start fixing them.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Florian Weimer]

* Russ Allbery:

> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
>
>>> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
>>> later" under the GPL version 3?
>
>>> And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
>>> version 3 or later"?
>
>> If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the
>> *earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.
>
> Wholeheartedly agreed.  I don't understand the rationale for doing
> anything different.

Same here.  My conclusion is that the GPL symlink should not be
changed.  Policy can still deprecate the symlink, but the actual
content should not be update for GPLv3.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Florian Weimer 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
> >later" under the GPL version 3?
> 
> Actually, YOU CAN'T.
> 
> The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the person who owns the 
> copyright.

Technically you are of course correct. Debian cannot relicense somebody
else's software unless the license grants sublicensing rights.

In this case however the copyright holder gives prospective licensees a
choice:
"you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General
Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version
2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

The recipient of the software thus can elect to use GPLv2's or GPLv3's
terms. This is not sublicensing or relicensing, it is simply choosing
between one of the offers included by the licensor. It's just like
the "GPL or 'commercial'" dual licensing used by e.g. MySQL or Trolltech.

Debian needs a license in order to distribute the software. Debian can
elect to distribute under the terms of the GPLv3. However to give the user
more choice, I would suggest that Debian tries to use GPLv2 whenever
possible.

Arnoud (IAALBINYL)

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
  Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Anthony W. Youngman dies 02/07/2007 hora 21:37:
> > But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2
> > or later" under the GPL version 3?
> Actually, YOU CAN'T.
> 
> The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the person who owns the
> copyright.

Actually, the text seems to say the contrary:

  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at
  your option) any later version.

Redistributing it under the terms of a later version is, in any aspect,
changing its license... And that's something the license makes possible,
in the same way that a BSD or MIT license makes it possible to
distribute the code under GPL (or as a binary-only application, for that
matter).
 
Doubtfully,
Pierre
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Florian Weimer 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

* Santiago Vila:


+ file.  Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
+ that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
+ licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
+ hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity.

I disagree with this. It should be ok to point to the latest version
of the GPL if the program says "Version X or later". Many programs
do that, and we should not need to change them.


But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
later" under the GPL version 3?


Actually, YOU CAN'T.

The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the person who owns the 
copyright.


The recipient has the right to use code placed under a "v2 or later" 
licence AS IF it was under v3 - they do not have the right to re-licence 
it under v3.


And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
version 3 or later"?

I think you need to, though, because they ARE two DIFFERENT licencing 
criteria, and you do NOT have the right to change them.


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Russ Allbery]

Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> AISI, the reason for using the unversioned link is that it means less
> work for maintainers (and the work *is* significant when it comes to
> lots of packages) who have to update the copyright file every time
> license changes.

This reason doesn't make any sense to me.  Nothing about the licensing of
the package changes when a new version of the GPL is released, and nothing
should have to change about the copyright file.  It should continue to
point to GPL-2.  The language in the copyright file will already say that
the package is covered under GPL v2 or later, and if the user wants to
apply another license, they can figure it out.

After reading this discussion, I think the right thing to do here is
pretty clearly to phase out the unversioned link.  Every package should
point in their debian/copyright file to the earliest version of the GPL
that the Debian project considers free (if that's ever an issue) and that
the package can be licensed under, and not be updated unless the package
licensing updates.

> Most GPL programs out there are 2-or-later, so we are always allowed to
> distributed as per the latest GPL.

But why would we want to?  We already know the GPL v2 is DFSG-free, so we
have, so far as I can tell, zero motivation to intentionally choose a
later version of the license under which to exercise our rights grant, and
doing so may get us into trouble if assumptions made by the package happen
to not apply with the later version of the GPL.

As far as I can see, the only reason for the Debian project to ever choose
a later version of the GPL when distributing packages is if that later
version offers us some new freedom that we want to exercise, and I've not
heard of any such thing happening yet.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Russ Allbery]

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:

>> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
>> later" under the GPL version 3?

>> And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
>> version 3 or later"?

> If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the
> *earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.

Wholeheartedly agreed.  I don't understand the rationale for doing
anything different.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:49:58PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
> > * Santiago Vila:
> > 
> > > + file.  Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> > > + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
> > > + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity.
> > >
> > > I disagree with this. It should be ok to point to the latest version
> > > of the GPL if the program says "Version X or later". Many programs
> > > do that, and we should not need to change them.
> > 
> > But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
> > later" under the GPL version 3?
> > 
> > And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
> > version 3 or later"?
> 
> If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the
> *earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.

There's nothing about the earliest giving user more choice than the
latest.  If instead of GPL 2 and GPL 3, we call them GPL Foo and GPL Bar,
we get:

  - Program is licensed under either GPL Foo, GPL Bar, or future versions
  that don't exist yet.
  - Since both Foo and Bar are DFSG-free [1], we are allowed to distribute it
  under the terms of either.  This doesn't take away freedom from our users,
  who are still able to use it as per the terms of Foo or Bar.

AISI, the reason for using the unversioned link is that it means less work
for maintainers (and the work *is* significant when it comes to lots of
packages) who have to update the copyright file every time license changes.
Most GPL programs out there are 2-or-later, so we are always allowed to
distributed as per the latest GPL.  The opposite does not apply.

[1] Even if DFSG-freeness of GPL 3 were to be disputed, this proposal is
completely agnostic about that.

-- 
Robert Millan

My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters.  Writing to it will get you added to my black list.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Julien Cristau]

On Sun, Jul  1, 2007 at 12:49:58 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:

> If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the
> *earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.
> 
I don't understand this "of course", nor do I understand how the file we
point to relates to the right our users have.  If a piece of software is
GPLv2 or later, that doesn't change just because debian/copyright points
to GPLv3...

Cheers,
Julien


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Andreas Barth]

* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070630 10:16]:
> * Santiago Vila:
> 
> > + file.  Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> > + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
> > + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity.
> >
> > I disagree with this. It should be ok to point to the latest version
> > of the GPL if the program says "Version X or later". Many programs
> > do that, and we should not need to change them.
> 
> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
> later" under the GPL version 3?
> 
> And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
> version 3 or later"?

If it says "version N or later", we should of course point to the
*earliest* version to give users the choice which version they want.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila wrote:

[...]
> In other words, I think it would be ok if our copyright files were
> worded like this:
> 
> This program is free software. It is under GPL version 2 or later. On
> Debian systems, the latest GPL version is in
> /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL.

But, AFAIUI, the purpose of this informational sentence is to comply
with the GNU GPL v2, which states, in Section 1:

| give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
| along with the Program.

and then includes (by reference to Section 1) this same restriction in
the successive Sections.

As a consequence, for a work licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL v2
or later, Debian should give a copy of the GNU GPL *v2*, which it does
in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2.
Hence I think the informational sentence should be "On Debian systems,
the GNU GPL version 2 is in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2", for both
works under GPL v2 only and works under GPL v2 or later.


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpMPzsoZYykX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Santiago Vila]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Santiago Vila:
> 
> > + file.  Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> > + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> > + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
> > + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity.
> >
> > I disagree with this. It should be ok to point to the latest version
> > of the GPL if the program says "Version X or later". Many programs
> > do that, and we should not need to change them.
> 
> But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
> later" under the GPL version 3?
> 
> And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
> version 3 or later"?

We would not be necessarily relicensing to GPL version 3.

The paragraph "On Debian systems the GPL is in /usr/share/common-licenses"
is mainly for informational purposes. The license for the package
would still be the one in the source code, and it would be as well
the one in the copyright file.

In other words, I think it would be ok if our copyright files were worded
like this:

This program is free software. It is under GPL version 2 or later. On Debian
systems, the latest GPL version is in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks

[Florian Weimer]

* Santiago Vila:

> + file.  Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
> + that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
> + licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
> + hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity.
>
> I disagree with this. It should be ok to point to the latest version
> of the GPL if the program says "Version X or later". Many programs
> do that, and we should not need to change them.

But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
later" under the GPL version 3?

And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
version 3 or later"?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]