Re: apache2 and gpl2+
Hi, Quoting Riley Baird (2014-08-31 23:02:57) As it is pointed out here [5] and here [6], GPL2 is incompatible with Apache2 but GPL3 projects can contain Apache2 licensed code. Since vcmi is licensed GPL2+, could the Debian package upgrade the license to GPL3+ and thus turn it into a GPL3 project with Apache2 code which should be compatible? Sorry if this is stupid, it's just a naive idea. Yes, you certainly could do that! I see. Are there other examples in the archive where this is done? What would I put into debian/copyright? GPL2+ (which is what upstream uses but is unredistributable) or GPL3+? The last possible solution I see would be to make the embedded fuzzylite version of vcmi into a shared library that vcmi can then link against. If it is a shared library and not statically compiled into vcmi, does it make a difference in terms of license compatibility? Or is even linking of apache2 code from gpl2+ code forbidden? I'm not sure, but I'd say that this would permitted if you released vcmi as a whole under GPL-3(+), but it would be forbidden if you choose GPL-2 only. I see, thanks! By the way, would it be possible to link to the present version of fuzzylite, instead of the provided copy? Debian policy 4.13 (https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html) does not allow convenience copies. It would be hard to do that because upstream uses a two year old version of fuzzylite with their own patches on top. Fuzzylite itself is not in Debian and does not seem to be embedded in any other source package according to codesearch. So there would be a tradeoff between - letting vcmi ship its convenience copy of outdated fuzzylite and - putting an outdated and patched fuzzylite package into Debian. Neither of those solutions seems optimal. It would of course be best if upstream could switch to the current version of fuzzylite but according to them that would mean to rewrite big parts of their code because fuzzylite added/removed/changed much functionality with their recent version 5.0. Thanks a lot for your input! cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140901190346.3685.85411@hoothoot
Re: apache2 and gpl2+
Hi, Quoting Simon McVittie (2014-08-31 23:27:20) [snip] The license applicable to the binaries is still not GPL-3, though - it is ((GPL-2 or GPL-3 or ...) and Apache-2.0). The practical result is the same as ((GPL-3 or ...) and Apache-2.0), but it matters if you're going to extract GPL-2+ bits and combine them with something GPL-2. thanks a lot for taking your time and writing all of this down! This improved my understanding of how licenses work by a lot! Thank you! cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140901190819.3685.6679@hoothoot
Re: apache2 and gpl2+
On 01/09/14 20:03, Johannes Schauer wrote: What would I put into debian/copyright? GPL2+ (which is what upstream uses but is unredistributable) or GPL3+? If it was me, I'd state the facts: Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Files: * Copyright: © 2000 Alice Smith © 2010 Bob Jones License: GPL-2+ Files: lib/fuzzylite/* Copyright: © 1995 Fred Bloggs © 2005 Jane Doe License: Apache-2.0 License: GPL-2+ blah blah blah or any later version blah blah blah common-licenses License: Apache-2.0 blah blah blah except in compliance with the License blah blah blah common-licenses (but with the actual copyright holders and license grants instead :-) and let the reader draw their own conclusions. If you were feeling explanatory, you could put something like this in the first paragraph, the one with the Format: Comment: The effective license for the binaries is (GPL-3+ and Apache-2.0) since GPL-2 and Apache-2.0 are not compatible Or if you don't like the structured copyright file format, do the same thing with less syntax and more text. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5404d37b.8090...@debian.org
apache2 and gpl2+
Hi, I'm trying to package vcmi [1], a reimplementation of the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 engine [2]. I'm hitting a legal roadblock now because vcmi embeds an old version of fuzzylite [3] which is licensed under Apache2. Vcmi itself is licensed under GPL2+. I was made aware that the GPL2 and Apache2 are incompatible (thread starts here [4]). I'm now looking for a solution and would like you for advice about license compatibility. As it is pointed out here [5] and here [6], GPL2 is incompatible with Apache2 but GPL3 projects can contain Apache2 licensed code. Since vcmi is licensed GPL2+, could the Debian package upgrade the license to GPL3+ and thus turn it into a GPL3 project with Apache2 code which should be compatible? Sorry if this is stupid, it's just a naive idea. Fuzzylite upstream relicensed from Apache2 to LGPL3 with version 5.0 of fuzzylite. Unfortunately, vcmi uses a very old version of fuzzylite with their own set of patches on top, so upgrading to 5.0 would take quite some effort. So instead we asked the fuzzylite upstream if they would consider relicensing the older fuzzylite to LGPL3 as well but got no response. The last possible solution I see would be to make the embedded fuzzylite version of vcmi into a shared library that vcmi can then link against. If it is a shared library and not statically compiled into vcmi, does it make a difference in terms of license compatibility? Or is even linking of apache2 code from gpl2+ code forbidden? Thank you! cheers, josch [1] http://mentors.debian.net/package/vcmi [2] http://forum.vcmi.eu/portal.php [3] http://www.fuzzylite.com/cpp/ [4] http://lists.debian.org/cap+dxjfrvun2xtunx1khhjugeshi_pb1z_uwmxdi2msyc_+...@mail.gmail.com [5] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 [6] http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140831165404.3685.38735@hoothoot
Re: apache2 and gpl2+
As it is pointed out here [5] and here [6], GPL2 is incompatible with Apache2 but GPL3 projects can contain Apache2 licensed code. Since vcmi is licensed GPL2+, could the Debian package upgrade the license to GPL3+ and thus turn it into a GPL3 project with Apache2 code which should be compatible? Sorry if this is stupid, it's just a naive idea. Yes, you certainly could do that! The last possible solution I see would be to make the embedded fuzzylite version of vcmi into a shared library that vcmi can then link against. If it is a shared library and not statically compiled into vcmi, does it make a difference in terms of license compatibility? Or is even linking of apache2 code from gpl2+ code forbidden? I'm not sure, but I'd say that this would permitted if you released vcmi as a whole under GPL-3(+), but it would be forbidden if you choose GPL-2 only. By the way, would it be possible to link to the present version of fuzzylite, instead of the provided copy? Debian policy 4.13 (https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html) does not allow convenience copies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54038d81.4050...@bitmessage.ch
Re: apache2 and gpl2+
On 31/08/14 17:54, Johannes Schauer wrote: As it is pointed out here [5] and here [6], GPL2 is incompatible with Apache2 but GPL3 projects can contain Apache2 licensed code. Since vcmi is licensed GPL2+, could the Debian package upgrade the license to GPL3+ and thus turn it into a GPL3 project with Apache2 code which should be compatible? Sorry if this is stupid, it's just a naive idea. (All answers are on the basis of your statements about the license being accurate: I know nothing about vcmi.) That general reasoning works, but you don't have to upgrade the license or anything. The way to think about it is: who has the right to say what you may do, and what did they say? The copyright holder of fuzzylite (more precisely, the fuzzylite source code) says you may copy it, as long as you don't do anything not allowed by the Apache license v2. The copyright holder of vcmi (more precisely, the parts of the vcmi source code other than fuzzylite) says you may copy it, as long as you don't do anything not allowed by any of the GPL2, or the GPL3, or a hypothetical future GPL version. OK, that's the source. What about the binaries? They are a derivative work of both vcmi and fuzzylite source code, so you may only do things that are allowed by both the vcmi copyright holders, and the fuzzylite copyright holders. In other words, the license is you must obey the GPL2 or later, and simultaneously obey the Apache license v2. The GPL2 says you can only copy under GPL2 if the source code for the whole thing is under terms no more restrictive than GPL2, and the Apache license v2 has terms more restrictive than that, so, no go: this combination of licenses would place impossible requirements on you. However, the GPL3 says you can only copy under GPL3 if the source code for the whole thing is under terms no more restrictive than (GPL3 + a few restrictions), and the Apache license v2 fits in those few restrictions, so it is possible to comply with the terms of both the GPL3 and the Apache license v2 simultaneously. Both of these licenses let you do everything the DFSG requires, so that's good enough for Debian. The license applicable to the binaries is still not GPL-3, though - it is ((GPL-2 or GPL-3 or ...) and Apache-2.0). The practical result is the same as ((GPL-3 or ...) and Apache-2.0), but it matters if you're going to extract GPL-2+ bits and combine them with something GPL-2. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54039338.7090...@debian.org
