Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano]

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+

[Alexandre Franke]

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+

[Bastien Nocera]

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+

[Alexandre Franke]

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+

[Carlos Soriano]

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Alexandre Franke]

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

This is done now in 
https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/commit/?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc0248dd05b17cb78252a788
Thanks all for the input!

Best,
Carlos Soriano

>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
> Local Time: May 28, 2017 3:30 PM
> UTC Time: May 28, 2017 1:30 PM
> From: swil...@gnome.org
> To: Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net>
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org <desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:20:49PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 12:08 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
>> > For LGPL -> GPL, you need the explicit approval of all copyright
>> > holders.
>>
>> No, you don't. It says right in the license that you can use LGPL
>> sources as GPL if you so wish:
>> "you may convey a copy of the modified version [...] under the GNU GPL,
>> with none of the additional permissions of this License applicable to
>> that copy."
>>
>> Meaning that you can strip the additional permissions in the LGPL to
>> make it GPL without asking anyone.
> Oh, thanks for correcting me. Good to know.
> I confused with GPL -> LGPL.
> --
> Sébastien
> ___
> 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+

[Sébastien Wilmet]

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:20:49PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 12:08 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> > For LGPL -> GPL, you need the explicit approval of all copyright
> > holders.
> 
> No, you don't. It says right in the license that you can use LGPL
> sources as GPL if you so wish:
> "you may convey a copy of the modified version [...] under the GNU GPL,
> with none of the additional permissions of this License applicable to
> that copy."
> 
> Meaning that you can strip the additional permissions in the LGPL to
> make it GPL without asking anyone.

Oh, thanks for correcting me. Good to know.

I confused with GPL -> LGPL.

--
Sébastien
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 12:08 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:59:02AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > For now we won't relicense the files, since that would require
> > copyright holders to agree (iiuc). Instead is the project that will
> > become GPL3+, since the combination of GPL2+ + GPL3+ files results
> > in
> > a project that is GPL3+.
> 
> For the files licensed as GPLv2+, the copyright holders have already
> agreed with "any later version", so you can directly relicense to
> GPLv3+
> without asking the permission to each copyright holder.
> 
> For LGPL -> GPL, you need the explicit approval of all copyright
> holders.

No, you don't. It says right in the license that you can use LGPL
sources as GPL if you so wish:
"you may convey a copy of the modified version [...] under the GNU GPL,
with none of the additional permissions of this License applicable to
that copy."

Meaning that you can strip the additional permissions in the LGPL to
make it GPL without asking anyone.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Ah thanks Luis, I'll take that into account

Sent from ProtonMail mobile

 Original Message 
On 28 May 2017, 13:01, Luis Menina wrote:
Hi,

Le 25/05/2017 à 14:48, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list a écrit :
> Thanks Michael, looks interesting and seems there are enough reasons to
> upgrade files too.
> We can take a look after we "assume" the project license is gpl3+ and no
> problem arises.

in any case, if you choose to change each file's license, please use
SPDX tags instead or in addition to the license header. This helps to
automate license detection by license-related tools.

https://spdx.org
https://spdx.org/using-spdx#identifiers
https://spdx.linuxfound.info/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/using_spdx_license_list_short_identifiers.pdf

Thanks
___
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+

[Luis Menina]

Hi,

Le 25/05/2017 à 14:48, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list a écrit :
Thanks Michael, looks interesting and seems there are enough reasons to 
upgrade files too.
We can take a look after we "assume" the project license is gpl3+ and no 
problem arises.


in any case, if you choose to change each file's license, please use 
SPDX tags instead or in addition to the license header. This helps to 
automate license detection by license-related tools.


https://spdx.org
https://spdx.org/using-spdx#identifiers
https://spdx.linuxfound.info/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/using_spdx_license_list_short_identifiers.pdf

Thanks
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Thanks Michael, looks interesting and seems there are enough reasons to upgrade 
files too.
We can take a look after we "assume" the project license is gpl3+ and no 
problem arises.

Best,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 25, 2017 2:07 PM
UTC Time: May 25, 2017 12:07 PM
From: mike.catanz...@gmail.com
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>
Sébastien Wilmet <swil...@gnome.org>, desktop-devel-list@gnome.org 
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote:
> Aha!
> I still get different opinions from different people on that. But
> that makes sense to me. Probably makes sense to relicense the files
> too at some point, but that would be a later decision.
> Do you know any advantage of relicensing the files themselves?
>
> Best,
> Carlos Soriano

The advantages of relicensing are:

* Easier to copy code into Nautilus from other GNOME projects. You
cannot currently copy code into Nautilus from the handful of projects
that have already transitioned to GPLv3+.
* Less confusion. It's confusing for the project license to be GPLv3+
while nearly all of the source code is licensed GPLv2+.
* Promote stronger, more effective copyleft. Many people believe GPLv3
is a better license than GPLv2. See [1].

This is why I've relicensed all the source files in Epiphany.

The disadvantage is that after relicensing, it will become harder to
copy code from Nautilus into other GNOME projects. You cannot copy into
GPLv2+ projects unless you relicense the other project to GPLv3+ or go
back in the commit history to before the relicensing. This is only a
transition problem, because it can be solved by upgrading the license
of the other project.

Michael

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

The project, not everyfile. It's more like accepting that Nautilus is gpl3+ now 
since some files are gpl3+ already. That's what I mean by re licensing.

Best,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 25, 2017 12:36 PM
UTC Time: May 25, 2017 10:36 AM
From: swil...@gnome.org
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org <desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:10:56AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> I still get different opinions from different people on that. But that
> makes sense to me. Probably makes sense to relicense the files too at
> some point, but that would be a later decision.
> Do you know any advantage of relicensing the files themselves?

Well, I thought you wanted to license Nautilus as GPLv3+, that's the
topic of this thread…

See:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade

--
Sébastien___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list 
 wrote:

Aha!
I still get different opinions from different people on that. But 
that makes sense to me. Probably makes sense to relicense the files 
too at some point, but that would be a later decision.

Do you know any advantage of relicensing the files themselves?

Best,
Carlos Soriano


The advantages of relicensing are:

* Easier to copy code into Nautilus from other GNOME projects. You 
cannot currently copy code into Nautilus from the handful of projects 
that have already transitioned to GPLv3+.
* Less confusion. It's confusing for the project license to be GPLv3+ 
while nearly all of the source code is licensed GPLv2+.
* Promote stronger, more effective copyleft. Many people believe GPLv3 
is a better license than GPLv2. See [1].


This is why I've relicensed all the source files in Epiphany.

The disadvantage is that after relicensing, it will become harder to 
copy code from Nautilus into other GNOME projects. You cannot copy into 
GPLv2+ projects unless you relicense the other project to GPLv3+ or go 
back in the commit history to before the relicensing. This is only a 
transition problem, because it can be solved by upgrading the license 
of the other project.


Michael

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Sébastien Wilmet]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:10:56AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> I still get different opinions from different people on that. But that
> makes sense to me. Probably makes sense to relicense the files too at
> some point, but that would be a later decision.
> Do you know any advantage of relicensing the files themselves?

Well, I thought you wanted to license Nautilus as GPLv3+, that's the
topic of this thread…

See:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade

--
Sébastien
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Aha!
I still get different opinions from different people on that. But that makes 
sense to me. Probably makes sense to relicense the files too at some point, but 
that would be a later decision.
Do you know any advantage of relicensing the files themselves?

Best,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 25, 2017 12:08 PM
UTC Time: May 25, 2017 10:08 AM
From: swil...@gnome.org
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org <desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:59:02AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> For now we won't relicense the files, since that would require
> copyright holders to agree (iiuc). Instead is the project that will
> become GPL3+, since the combination of GPL2+ + GPL3+ files results in
> a project that is GPL3+.

For the files licensed as GPLv2+, the copyright holders have already
agreed with "any later version", so you can directly relicense to GPLv3+
without asking the permission to each copyright holder.

For LGPL -> GPL, you need the explicit approval of all copyright
holders.

--
Sébastien
___
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+

[Sébastien Wilmet]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:59:02AM -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> For now we won't relicense the files, since that would require
> copyright holders to agree (iiuc). Instead is the project that will
> become GPL3+, since the combination of GPL2+ + GPL3+ files results in
> a project that is GPL3+.

For the files licensed as GPLv2+, the copyright holders have already
agreed with "any later version", so you can directly relicense to GPLv3+
without asking the permission to each copyright holder.

For LGPL -> GPL, you need the explicit approval of all copyright
holders.

--
Sébastien
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Thanks Sebastien!

For now we won't relicense the files, since that would require copyright 
holders to agree (iiuc). Instead is the project that will become GPL3+, since 
the combination of GPL2+ + GPL3+ files results in a project that is GPL3+.

Best,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 25, 2017 11:55 AM
UTC Time: May 25, 2017 9:55 AM
From: swil...@gnome.org
To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

Hi,

Just to mention that I've written two scripts that ease changing license
headers:
- gcu-multi-line-substitution
- gcu-smart-c-comment-substitution

available at:
https://github.com/swilmet/gnome-c-utils

Cheers,
Sébastien
___
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+

[Sébastien Wilmet]

Hi,

Just to mention that I've written two scripts that ease changing license
headers:
- gcu-multi-line-substitution
- gcu-smart-c-comment-substitution

available at:
https://github.com/swilmet/gnome-c-utils

Cheers,
Sébastien
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+ / Licence Compatibility Matrix

[Sebastian Geiger (Lanoxx)]

Hi,

I usually find the Compatibility Matrix very useful when thinking about
licensing issues. Since I have not seen it in this thread yet, I thought
I would post the link:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

Cheers
Sebastian

On 19/05/17 00:05, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 15:47 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
>> Maybe I didn't explain well. Emilio points out there could one one of
>> those extensions that say GPL2+ to link to a GPL2-only library. But
>> that would make the extension itself GPL2 anyway, and it's License
>> file would have to reflect that initially.
> Again, it wouldn't. The combined work would be GPLv2-only, but each one
> of the items keeps its own license. The licenses are compatible.
>
> You don't have to have an piece of code depending on the exact same
> version of the license if those licenses are compatible. GPLv2-only is
> compatible with GPLv2+, as the license mentions for that dependency
> says:
> "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
> version."
>
> The selection is "made" automatically when you run those 2 items in the
> same memory address space (eg. when you "link" them).
>
>> It's just a hipotetical case, I checked the extensions dependencies
>> in a quick look and look fine (>= GPL+2).
> ___
> 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+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Hey A. Walton,

Relicensing from gpl2+ (supposed current nautilus) to lgpl2+ (current gtk+) 
requires agreement of all copyright holders, and the software license is free 
software one.
Relicensing from gpl3+ requires ecxactly the same process, and both are still 
free software licenses.

Do you mean something in particular by "more difficult"?

Best regards,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 19, 2017 6:29 AM
UTC Time: May 19, 2017 4:29 AM
From: awal...@gnome.org
To: Ernestas Kulik <ernest...@gnome.org>
Gnome Release Team <release-t...@gnome.org>, nautilus-list 
<nautilus-l...@gnome.org>, desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Ernestas Kulik <ernest...@gnome.org> wrote:
> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
>
> Hi,
>
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> GPLv3+.
>
> The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under its
> terms, so our options are quite limited here.
>
> The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in turn
> disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is not
> meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.
>
> If there are no objections, we will make the switch in the following
> week, most likely.

My primary objection is not ideological, but practical - relicensing
Nautilus GPLv3+ means that it becomes more difficult to promote code
from Nautilus to Gtk+, which has happened a significant number of
times in the past and I expect it will continue some into the future.

Stacked with the other reasons (plugins, etc), it just doesn't seem
like a very good idea.

-Andrew Walton.

> Regards,
> Ernestas
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-l...@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-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+

[A. Walton]

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Ernestas Kulik  wrote:
> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
>
> Hi,
>
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> GPLv3+.
>
> The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under its
> terms, so our options are quite limited here.
>
> The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in turn
> disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is not
> meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.
>
> If there are no objections, we will make the switch in the following
> week, most likely.

My primary objection is not ideological, but practical - relicensing
Nautilus GPLv3+ means that it becomes more difficult to promote code
from Nautilus to Gtk+, which has happened a significant number of
times in the past and I expect it will continue some into the future.

Stacked with the other reasons (plugins, etc), it just doesn't seem
like a very good idea.

-Andrew Walton.

> Regards,
> Ernestas
> ___
> 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+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Ah yes, my bad. For some reason my mind didn't accept the "GPL2-only is 
compatible with GPL2+". All clear now.
 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:05 AM
UTC Time: May 18, 2017 10:05 PM
From: had...@hadess.net
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>
release-t...@gnome.org <release-t...@gnome.org>, nautilus-l...@gnome.org 
<nautilus-l...@gnome.org>, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <poch...@gmail.com>, Frederic 
Crozat <f...@crozat.net>, desktop-devel-list@gnome.org 
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 15:47 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Maybe I didn't explain well. Emilio points out there could one one of
> those extensions that say GPL2+ to link to a GPL2-only library. But
> that would make the extension itself GPL2 anyway, and it's License
> file would have to reflect that initially.

Again, it wouldn't. The combined work would be GPLv2-only, but each one
of the items keeps its own license. The licenses are compatible.

You don't have to have an piece of code depending on the exact same
version of the license if those licenses are compatible. GPLv2-only is
compatible with GPLv2+, as the license mentions for that dependency
says:
"either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version."

The selection is "made" automatically when you run those 2 items in the
same memory address space (eg. when you "link" them).

> It's just a hipotetical case, I checked the extensions dependencies
> in a quick look and look fine (>= GPL+2).
--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-l...@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-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+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 15:47 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Maybe I didn't explain well. Emilio points out there could one one of
> those extensions that say GPL2+ to link to a GPL2-only library. But
> that would make the extension itself GPL2 anyway, and it's License
> file would have to reflect that initially.

Again, it wouldn't. The combined work would be GPLv2-only, but each one
of the items keeps its own license. The licenses are compatible.

You don't have to have an piece of code depending on the exact same
version of the license if those licenses are compatible. GPLv2-only is
compatible with GPLv2+, as the license mentions for that dependency
says:
"either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version."

The selection is "made" automatically when you run those 2 items in the
same memory address space (eg. when you "link" them).

> It's just a hipotetical case, I checked the extensions dependencies
> in a quick look and look fine (>= GPL+2).
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Maybe I didn't explain well. Emilio points out there could one one of those 
extensions that say GPL2+ to link to a GPL2-only library. But that would make 
the extension itself GPL2 anyway, and it's License file would have to reflect 
that initially.
It's just a hipotetical case, I checked the extensions dependencies in a quick 
look and look fine (>= GPL+2).

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 18, 2017 9:29 PM
UTC Time: May 18, 2017 7:29 PM
From: had...@hadess.net
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort 
<poch...@gmail.com>
release-t...@gnome.org <release-t...@gnome.org>, nautilus-l...@gnome.org 
<nautilus-l...@gnome.org>, desktop-devel-list@gnome.org 
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>, Frederic Crozat <f...@crozat.net>

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 13:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-
list wrote:
> Wouldn't that make the actual extension GPL2-but-not-GPL3 comaptible
> since the start, and therefore cannot be GPL2+ project and therefore
> its License file would need to reflect that?

No. nautilus' license says "GPLv2 or later". The extension's license
says "GPLv2 only".

When you combine both licenses into the final product/memory address
space (the "linking" mentioned in the GPL license) you end up with a
"combined work" license of GPLv2.

So it was compatible, but wouldn't be any more.

As mentioned on IRC, I think that the original intent of using the LGPL
for the libnautilus-extensions library was to allow non-GPL-compatible
extensions to link into nautilus, at will. It's not like you could link
to the extensions library without also eventually linking to nautilus
itself...

If that were the case, and that might require some digging to talk to
the original authors, then you might be able to mention this in the
extensions document that was recently (and erroneously) removed.

HTH
___
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+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 13:50 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-
list wrote:
> Wouldn't that make the actual extension GPL2-but-not-GPL3 comaptible
> since the start, and therefore cannot be GPL2+ project and therefore
> its License file would need to reflect that?

No. nautilus' license says "GPLv2 or later". The extension's license
says "GPLv2 only".

When you combine both licenses into the final product/memory address
space (the "linking" mentioned in the GPL license) you end up with a
"combined work" license of GPLv2.

So it was compatible, but wouldn't be any more.

As mentioned on IRC, I think that the original intent of using the LGPL
for the libnautilus-extensions library was to allow non-GPL-compatible
extensions to link into nautilus, at will. It's not like you could link
to the extensions library without also eventually linking to nautilus
itself...

If that were the case, and that might require some digging to talk to
the original authors, then you might be able to mention this in the
extensions document that was recently (and erroneously) removed.

HTH
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Wouldn't that make the actual extension GPL2-but-not-GPL3 comaptible since the 
start, and therefore cannot be GPL2+ project and therefore its License file 
would need to reflect that?

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 18, 2017 7:02 PM
UTC Time: May 18, 2017 5:02 PM
From: poch...@gmail.com
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>, Nicolas Dufresne 
<nico...@ndufresne.ca>
release-t...@gnome.org <release-t...@gnome.org>, nautilus-l...@gnome.org 
<nautilus-l...@gnome.org>, desktop-devel-list@gnome.org 
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>, Frederic Crozat <f...@crozat.net>

On 18/05/17 18:22, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After asking some authors of the current code that we have as GPL3+ inside
> nautilus, and pondering for a while, I realized the practicity of moving away
> from that code or convince those authors to relicense as GPL2+ is more a 
> burden
> than the real benefit.
>
> The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday
> discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only 
> cannot
> be used anymore.
> Keep in mind GPL2+ are fine.
>
> Said this, I took a look at extensions which are not retired from distros and
> that have seen a release in at least the last 3 years. So far they are:
> nautilus-dropbox - GPL3+
> nautilus-image-converter - GPL2+
> nautilus-pastebin - GPL2+
> nautilus-python - GPL2+
> nautilus-search-tool - GPL2+
> nautilus-sendto - GPL2+
> nautilus-terminal - GPL2+
>
> Which is completely fine.

As someone already mentioned, if any of those extensions links to a
non-GPL3-compatible library, then they won't be compatible with a GPL3+
nautilus. In other words, extensions are now forbidden from linking to
GPL2-but-not-GPL3-compatible libraries. I don't know whether there are any
examples of extensions that do this. Just thought I'd point this out so the
final decision is an informed one.

Cheers,
Emilio___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

On 18/05/17 18:22, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> After asking some authors of the current code that we have as GPL3+ inside 
> nautilus, and pondering for a while, I realized the practicity of moving away 
> from that code or convince those authors to relicense as GPL2+ is more a 
> burden 
> than the real benefit.
> 
> The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday 
> discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only 
> cannot 
> be used anymore.
> Keep in mind GPL2+ are fine.
> 
> Said this, I took a look at extensions which are not retired from distros and 
> that have seen a release in at least the last 3 years. So far they are:
> nautilus-dropbox - GPL3+
> nautilus-image-converter - GPL2+
> nautilus-pastebin - GPL2+
> nautilus-python - GPL2+
> nautilus-search-tool - GPL2+
> nautilus-sendto - GPL2+
> nautilus-terminal - GPL2+
> 
> Which is completely fine.

As someone already mentioned, if any of those extensions links to a
non-GPL3-compatible library, then they won't be compatible with a GPL3+
nautilus. In other words, extensions are now forbidden from linking to
GPL2-but-not-GPL3-compatible libraries. I don't know whether there are any
examples of extensions that do this. Just thought I'd point this out so the
final decision is an informed one.

Cheers,
Emilio
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Ah good catch, thanks!

The copyright is holded by only one person, so he can freely change it the 
plugin is still maintained.

Best regards,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 18, 2017 6:54 PM
UTC Time: May 18, 2017 4:54 PM
From: mbi...@gmail.com
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>
release-t...@gnome.org <release-t...@gnome.org>, nautilus-l...@gnome.org 
<nautilus-l...@gnome.org>, Frederic Crozat <f...@crozat.net>, 
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org <desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>

017-05-18 18:22 GMT+02:00 Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>:

> The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday
> discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only
> cannot be used anymore.
> Keep in mind GPL2+ are fine.
>
> Said this, I took a look at extensions which are not retired from distros
> and that have seen a release in at least the last 3 years. So far they are:
> nautilus-dropbox - GPL3+
> nautilus-image-converter - GPL2+
> nautilus-pastebin - GPL2+
> nautilus-python - GPL2+
> nautilus-search-tool - GPL2+
> nautilus-sendto - GPL2+
> nautilus-terminal - GPL2+

I found the tortoise-hg plugin in the Debian archive, which seems to
be GPL2 only
https://sources.debian.net/src/tortoisehg/4.0-1/contrib/nautilus-thg.py/

--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
___
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+

[Michael Biebl]

017-05-18 18:22 GMT+02:00 Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list
:

> The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday
> discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only
> cannot be used anymore.
> Keep in mind GPL2+ are fine.
>
> Said this, I took a look at extensions which are not retired from distros
> and that have seen a release in at least the last 3 years. So far they are:
> nautilus-dropbox - GPL3+
> nautilus-image-converter - GPL2+
> nautilus-pastebin - GPL2+
> nautilus-python - GPL2+
> nautilus-search-tool - GPL2+
> nautilus-sendto - GPL2+
> nautilus-terminal - GPL2+

I found the tortoise-hg plugin in the Debian archive, which seems to
be GPL2 only
https://sources.debian.net/src/tortoisehg/4.0-1/contrib/nautilus-thg.py/


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

Hello,

After asking some authors of the current code that we have as GPL3+ inside 
nautilus, and pondering for a while, I realized the practicity of moving away 
from that code or convince those authors to relicense as GPL2+ is more a burden 
than the real benefit.

The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday 
discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only 
cannot be used anymore.
Keep in mind GPL2+ are fine.

Said this, I took a look at extensions which are not retired from distros and 
that have seen a release in at least the last 3 years. So far they are:
nautilus-dropbox - GPL3+
nautilus-image-converter - GPL2+
nautilus-pastebin - GPL2+
nautilus-python - GPL2+
nautilus-search-tool - GPL2+
nautilus-sendto - GPL2+
nautilus-terminal - GPL2+

Which is completely fine.

Now, there is an issue with Totem plugin for Nautilus which adds a custom page 
to the properties page, since Totem is GPL2+ with a special clause for 
propietary gstreamer plugins.
However, that was already an unnoticed issue.
I don't want to get much deeper into all of this, given that being unnoticed 
for so long time probably means in practicity it doesn't matter much.
We will work on a workaround for this though, making this feature available 
through DBUS where this doesn't apply.

Given this, we will continue to our plan to relicense Nautilus project to GPL3+ 
next week if nothing serious gets noticed.

Best regards,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 17, 2017 6:49 PM
UTC Time: May 17, 2017 4:49 PM
From: nico...@ndufresne.ca
To: Frederic Crozat <f...@crozat.net>, nautilus-l...@gnome.org
release-t...@gnome.org, desktop-devel-list@gnome.org

Le mercredi 17 mai 2017 à 14:55 +, Frederic Crozat a écrit :
> Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik <ernest...@gnome.org> a
> écrit :
> > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite
> > complicated, I
> > and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> > GPLv3+.
> >
> > The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> > GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under
> > its
> > terms, so our options are quite limited here.
> >
> > The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> > extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in
> > turn
> > disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is
> > not
> > meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> > relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.
>
> I know at least one proprietary extension for Nautilus (integration
> with Synology NAS product) and I'm not sure we should prevent
> proprietary extensions to be used for Nautilus.

You can just mimic Totem exception clause. This is used to allow
proprietary GStreamer plugins.

https://git.gnome.org/browse/totem/tree/COPYING#n345

regards,
Nicolas___
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+

[Nicolas Dufresne]

Le mercredi 17 mai 2017 à 14:55 +, Frederic Crozat a écrit :
> Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik  a
> écrit :
> > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite
> > complicated, I
> > and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> > GPLv3+.
> > 
> > The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> > GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under
> > its
> > terms, so our options are quite limited here.
> > 
> > The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> > extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in
> > turn
> > disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is
> > not
> > meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> > relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.
> 
> I know at least one proprietary extension  for Nautilus (integration
> with Synology NAS product) and I'm not sure we should prevent
> proprietary extensions to be used for Nautilus.

You can just mimic Totem exception clause. This is used to allow
proprietary GStreamer plugins.

https://git.gnome.org/browse/totem/tree/COPYING#n345

regards,
Nicolas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:13 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> There are few by error.
> The important cases are lineup-parameters used for uncrustify, and
> the threatics part from gnome-builder.
> However, we already spent time on implementing our own thing in the
> past with git-archive-all (GPLv3+) when meson couldn't handle it, so
> I would like to prevent this from happening again and avoid us the
> work with asking few upstreams to relicense based on our needs, and
> rather switch to GPL3+ where most of the tools are.

I don't understand what git-archive-all has to do with this. Is the
problem that some of the tools you ship are GPLv3? That doesn't mean
the rest of the module has to be...
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list]

There are few by error.
The important cases are lineup-parameters used for uncrustify, and the 
threatics part from gnome-builder.
However, we already spent time on implementing our own thing in the past with 
git-archive-all (GPLv3+) when meson couldn't handle it, so I would like to 
prevent this from happening again and avoid us the work with asking few 
upstreams to relicense based on our needs, and rather switch to GPL3+ where 
most of the tools are.

Best regards,
Carlos Soriano

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 17, 2017 4:59 PM
UTC Time: May 17, 2017 2:59 PM
From: had...@hadess.net
To: Michael Catanzaro <mike.catanz...@gmail.com>
Ernestas Kulik <ernest...@gnome.org>, nautilus-l...@gnome.org, 
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org, release-t...@gnome.org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 09:45 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net>
> wrote:
> > If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-
> > only
> > or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening
> > the
> > can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
> > (such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins),
> > because
> > that's an existing problem.
> >
> > What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
> > license cause that require a relicense?
> >
> > Cheers
>
> Sounds like the license is already GPLv3+, since it uses GPLv3+
> source
> files, and the existing GPLv2+ notices are incorrect or misleading.

Were those licenses applied in error, or imported from projects that
were GPLv3 themselves?
--
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-l...@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-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+

[Ernestas Kulik]

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 16:20 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> 
> If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only
> or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions.

That’s fair.

> I'm also not opening the
> can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
> (such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins), because
> that's an existing problem.

Loading GPL-incompatibly-licensed extensions is already a problem. For
all I know, it always was.

> What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
> license cause that require a relicense?

The end goal here is to announce what has been the case since at least
two years ago (sans libnautilus-extension). We’ve got code that is
licensed under GPLv3+ and we’ve wanted to use code licensed under
GPLv3+, but, ironically, didn’t, because of these issues.

Having libnautilus-extension licensed under LGPL makes no sense if the
extensions have to be compatible with GPL when loaded.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 09:45 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera  
> wrote:
> > If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-
> > only
> > or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening
> > the
> > can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
> > (such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins),
> > because
> > that's an existing problem.
> > 
> > What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
> > license cause that require a relicense?
> > 
> > Cheers
> 
> Sounds like the license is already GPLv3+, since it uses GPLv3+
> source 
> files, and the existing GPLv2+ notices are incorrect or misleading.

Were those licenses applied in error, or imported from projects that
were GPLv3 themselves?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Frederic Crozat]

Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik  a écrit :

> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
>
> Hi,
>
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> GPLv3+.
>
> The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under its
> terms, so our options are quite limited here.
>
> The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in turn
> disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is not
> meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.
>

I know at least one proprietary extension  for Nautilus (integration with
Synology NAS product) and I'm not sure we should prevent
proprietary extensions to be used for Nautilus.

-- 

-- 
Frédéric Crozat
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera  
wrote:

If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only
or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening the
can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
(such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins), because
that's an existing problem.

What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
license cause that require a relicense?

Cheers


Sounds like the license is already GPLv3+, since it uses GPLv3+ source 
files, and the existing GPLv2+ notices are incorrect or misleading.


Michael

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 17:01 +0300, Ernestas Kulik wrote:
> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated,
> I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> GPLv3+.
> 
> The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under
> its
> terms, so our options are quite limited here.
> 
> The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in
> turn
> disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is not
> meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.

If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-only
or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening the
can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
(such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins), because
that's an existing problem.

What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
license cause that require a relicense?

Cheers
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list