Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Bastien Nocera > wrote: > > That's fine. The license of the compound work just has to be compatible > > with the individual files' licenses, it doesn't need to be the exact > > same one. > > For example, you can have a project mixing GPLv2+, GPLv3+ and BSD > > licensed files, and choose to have the compound work be GPLv3+. That > > also tells contributors that any new files in the project should be > > compatible with that overall license. > > I’m not claiming it doesn’t work. I’m just pointing it effectively > means the files haven’t switched licenses, which is what was intended. > Not really. The intention was "do we assume Nautilus project is gpl3+ now?" Otherwise we would have to request permission for every file that was gpl3+ to be gpl2+ etc etc. > nautilus-main.c and others still are under GPLv2+ and one can use them > under GPLv2 if they so choose. > > -- > Alexandre Franke > GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > That's fine. The license of the compound work just has to be compatible > with the individual files' licenses, it doesn't need to be the exact > same one. > For example, you can have a project mixing GPLv2+, GPLv3+ and BSD > licensed files, and choose to have the compound work be GPLv3+. That > also tells contributors that any new files in the project should be > compatible with that overall license. I’m not claiming it doesn’t work. I’m just pointing it effectively means the files haven’t switched licenses, which is what was intended. nautilus-main.c and others still are under GPLv2+ and one can use them under GPLv2 if they so choose. -- Alexandre Franke GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 07:56 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Carlos Soriano via > desktop-devel-list wrote: > > This is done now in > > https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/commit/?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc > > 0248dd05b17cb78252a788 > > I don’t think that’s sufficient though. Putting a LICENSE file in the > project directory just addresses the “You should have received a > copy” > provision, but doesn’t effectively place the code under that license. > You could even have several license files if parts of your project > are > under different licenses. > > That license file you put in your repository also states that you > should attach a notice to the program. It can take several form but > the recommended one is in the header of your source. In fact, there > is > already such a notice and it claims that the software is GPLv2+ > (https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/tree/src/nautilus-main.c?id=36 > 5ec7f7ac1cec51dc0248dd05b17cb78252a788). That's fine. The license of the compound work just has to be compatible with the individual files' licenses, it doesn't need to be the exact same one. For example, you can have a project mixing GPLv2+, GPLv3+ and BSD licensed files, and choose to have the compound work be GPLv3+. That also tells contributors that any new files in the project should be compatible with that overall license. > This brings us to another point: do you intend to use GPLv3 or > GPLv3+? > The notice should be explicit about it (again, as suggested by the > license you copied to your project). > > Cheers, > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Yeah maybe it's not sufficient. I can just create a custom LICENSE file that > says "license is in every file, all of them conpatible with gpl3+" or go > berseker and relicense every file to gpl3. Hmm no? What you currently have is: * a project that claims to be GPLv2+ (see notice at the top of e.g. nautilus-main.c) * with a notice that claims one should get a copy of the **GPLv2** with the project * and a copy of the **GPLv3** What you want is to change the existing notice so that it claims the proper license, and keep the new LICENSE file. > What notice do you mean? The license blurp in every file? Yes. -- Alexandre Franke GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Yeah maybe it's not sufficient. I can just create a custom LICENSE file that says "license is in every file, all of them conpatible with gpl3+" or go berseker and relicense every file to gpl3. What notice do you mean? The license blurp in every file? On Tue., 18 Jul. 2017, 07:56 Alexandre Franke, wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Carlos Soriano via > desktop-devel-list wrote: > > This is done now in > > > https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/commit/?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc0248dd05b17cb78252a788 > > I don’t think that’s sufficient though. Putting a LICENSE file in the > project directory just addresses the “You should have received a copy” > provision, but doesn’t effectively place the code under that license. > You could even have several license files if parts of your project are > under different licenses. > > That license file you put in your repository also states that you > should attach a notice to the program. It can take several form but > the recommended one is in the header of your source. In fact, there is > already such a notice and it claims that the software is GPLv2+ > ( > https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/tree/src/nautilus-main.c?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc0248dd05b17cb78252a788 > ). > > This brings us to another point: do you intend to use GPLv3 or GPLv3+? > The notice should be explicit about it (again, as suggested by the > license you copied to your project). > > Cheers, > > -- > Alexandre Franke > GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
