Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
In message 200909212115.37013.reinh...@kainhofer.com, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes Oops - haven't you got that backwards? If they put it under v2 ONLY, aren't they saying they don't agree to any additional FREEDOMS Both are right: They don't agree to additional FREEDOMS in the sense that the user is not free to choose GPLv2 or GPLv3, but they also don't agree to additional RESTRICTIONS: Using GPLv3 would add an additional restriction to the use (DRM, atent claues) and this is prohibited by GPLv2only. All users are be free to use GPLv2 applications in tivo-like machines and that freedom is whatI'm talking about. NO NO NO! Firstly, the user is completely UNaffected by ANY version of the GPL - the GPL *E*X*plicitly says it DOES NOT apply to users. Secondly, if you are distributing code which a copyright owner has licenced v2/v3 then it is YOUR choice whether to distribute it under v2 or v3. Where are the extra restrictions? YOU HAVE A CHOICE. The extra restrictions are only those YOU CHOSE to impose ON YOURSELF. Oh - and if you choose v3, that doesn't stop me from receiving it from you under v3, then distributing it myself under v2. (That's why, actually, I believe that sticking a v2-only notice on code that the author licenced v2+ is a GPL violation - you are adding restrictions by denying the recipient the choice of licence.) Thus lilypond can't link to any (L)GPLv3 library, which would add additional restrictions. such as allowing it to be distributed under v3? No byt linking to a LGPLv3 library, this does not require the application to be GPLv3. However, the LGPLv3 says that you can only link to it if you agree to the DRM- and patent clauses. That's the additional restrictions that LGPLv3 has compared to GPLv2. Thus linking to a LGPLv3 library takes aways rights (e.g. to legally prevent access by using DRM or to sue for patent infringement) that the GPLv2 provided. That's the nub of the whole damn thing :-( but if the library licence is v2 or v3 then the problem goes away. Actually, what the FSF *should* have said, in *all* the GPL licences (although it's a bit late to retrofit v2, sadly) is that if binaries are distributed with source, then the source clause applies and the binaries are legit. That would then permit mixing incompatible GPLs - *provided* the programs came *as* *source*. After all, that's the four freedoms they really want to defend, isn't it? Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Dienstag, 22. September 2009 11:16:58 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman: In message 200909212115.37013.reinh...@kainhofer.com, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes Both are right: They don't agree to additional FREEDOMS in the sense that the user is not free to choose GPLv2 or GPLv3, but they also don't agree to additional RESTRICTIONS: Using GPLv3 would add an additional restriction to the use (DRM, atent claues) and this is prohibited by GPLv2only. All users are be free to use GPLv2 applications in tivo-like machines and that freedom is whatI'm talking about. NO NO NO! Firstly, the user is completely UNaffected by ANY version of the GPL - the GPL *E*X*plicitly says it DOES NOT apply to users. Okay, once more bad choice of words on my side... I was talking about the users of the code (i.e. the developers) Secondly, if you are distributing code which a copyright owner has licenced v2/v3 then it is YOUR choice whether to distribute it under v2 or v3. Where are the extra restrictions? Exactly. But lilypond is GPL v2only, not v2/v3... (That's why, actually, I believe that sticking a v2-only notice on code that the author licenced v2+ is a GPL violation - you are adding restrictions by denying the recipient the choice of licence.) You might be denying the reciepient the choice of license. But that does not violate the GPL, since v2+ says: You can use it under the GPL v2, or at your choice any later option. If I'm using it under the GPL v3, I'm not bound by what the GPL v2 says and vice versa. Also note that the GPL only says that you can't take away rights granted by this license (the choice between GPL v2 and v3 is NOT granted by the GPL!). It does not say that all rights that the author originally granted must be preserved... Thus linking to a LGPLv3 library takes aways rights (e.g. to legally prevent access by using DRM or to sue for patent infringement) that the GPLv2 provided. That's the nub of the whole damn thing :-( but if the library licence is v2 or v3 then the problem goes away. Yes, because then one can use it under the GPLv2. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKuPBLTqjEwhXvPN0RAgXCAKClfTVqRVfFiyAggDqv5+SMNtoHxQCeOTT7 jPybZWmv2FpFCp2IaxI7mnI= =TfyB -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
In message 200909221742.07152.reinh...@kainhofer.com, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes (That's why, actually, I believe that sticking a v2-only notice on code that the author licenced v2+ is a GPL violation - you are adding restrictions by denying the recipient the choice of licence.) You might be denying the reciepient the choice of license. But that does not violate the GPL, since v2+ says: You can use it under the GPL v2, or at your choice any later option. If I'm using it under the GPL v3, I'm not bound by what the GPL v2 says and vice versa. Also note that the GPL only says that you can't take away rights granted by this license (the choice between GPL v2 and v3 is NOT granted by the GPL!). It does not say that all rights that the author originally granted must be preserved... It doesn't say all the rights the author originally granted must be preserved, true ... but it DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN CHANGE THEM! If the GPL doesn't give you the right to change those rights (which it doesn't), then you can't change them. Therefore they MUST be preserved, but it's copyright law that says you can't change them, because the GPL doesn't say you can. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
In message 200909201334.52063.reinh...@kainhofer.com, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes The LGPLv3 also includes the patents clause and the anti-DRM clause, which both add additional restrictions, which the GPLv2 does not have. On the other hand, all lilypond contributors -- by putting their code under GPLv2only -- explicitly say that they do not agree to any additional restrictions. Oops - haven't you got that backwards? If they put it under v2 ONLY, aren't they saying they don't agree to any additional FREEDOMS Thus lilypond can't link to any (L)GPLv3 library, which would add additional restrictions. such as allowing it to be distributed under v3? (Yes I know I'm being a pedant! But that's why I think demanding contributors use v2 *only* is a bad idea. You're saying they can't grant *more* *freedom* (if that's what they want).) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 21. September 2009 18:49:18 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman: In message 200909201334.52063.reinh...@kainhofer.com, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes The LGPLv3 also includes the patents clause and the anti-DRM clause, which both add additional restrictions, which the GPLv2 does not have. On the other hand, all lilypond contributors -- by putting their code under GPLv2only -- explicitly say that they do not agree to any additional restrictions. Oops - haven't you got that backwards? If they put it under v2 ONLY, aren't they saying they don't agree to any additional FREEDOMS Both are right: They don't agree to additional FREEDOMS in the sense that the user is not free to choose GPLv2 or GPLv3, but they also don't agree to additional RESTRICTIONS: Using GPLv3 would add an additional restriction to the use (DRM, atent claues) and this is prohibited by GPLv2only. All users are be free to use GPLv2 applications in tivo-like machines and that freedom is whatI'm talking about. Thus lilypond can't link to any (L)GPLv3 library, which would add additional restrictions. such as allowing it to be distributed under v3? No byt linking to a LGPLv3 library, this does not require the application to be GPLv3. However, the LGPLv3 says that you can only link to it if you agree to the DRM- and patent clauses. That's the additional restrictions that LGPLv3 has compared to GPLv2. Thus linking to a LGPLv3 library takes aways rights (e.g. to legally prevent access by using DRM or to sue for patent infringement) that the GPLv2 provided. (Yes I know I'm being a pedant! But that's why I think demanding contributors use v2 *only* is a bad idea. So do I! I contribute to lilypond to support lilypond, not to be picky about copyrights. For example, I signed over all my KDE contributions to the KDE e.V. and additionally crossed out the paragraph that that contract becomes void under certain circumstances... Unfortunately, there is nothing like that for Lilypond. I did these contributions to support lilypond (and sometimes also because I needed them), so they should really help lilypond and not cause legal problems. You're saying they can't grant *more* *freedom* (if that's what they want).) The developers can of course grant more freedom to their own code. It's just that the default is GPLv2only and nobody cares about asking or explicitly giving more rights (which would result in a mess anyway, because you would need to track who changed which lines, etc.). Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKt9DWTqjEwhXvPN0RAlziAKCKDGKWRkYO9Bk8R7AkeIsLNEaU8gCgsVib Tzx7l+nikWxvJtPWHtn8y9c= =QWCl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Graham Percival wrote: Now, at some point, there will be some important bug fix or new feature in guile 1.9, which is only published under v3. *Then* we'd have problems... but wait! If guile is truly under LGPL, and not GPL, then there should be no problems. I mean, if you can link to closed-source apps (the whole point of LGPL), then surely a mere GPLv2 app can still link to the library? The problem isn't with libguile being LGPLv3; the problem is with lilypond being GPLv2 only. The copyright infringement would be an infringement of lilypond's license, not libguile's. Lilypond would either need a linking exception to link with libguile (or ideally an exception to link with any GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ work) or would need to change its licensing accordingly. All of which would require by-in from all of lilypond's contributors.[1] As far as distributions go, I know I personally don't want to maintain guile-1.8, so if at some point it stops being maintained in Debian,[2] someone else will have to step up and maintain it for us to continue distributing lilypond. Don Armstrong 1: This is YA example of why choosing GPLv2 only is a bad idea if all you want to do is get on with your coding; the worst thing that could happen in future versions of the GPL is that more rights were given instead of less, since anyone who wanted would always be able to use the code under GPLv2. 2: It's currently being maintained, but since I'm not doing the work, I can't guarantee that that will continue to be the case. -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:46:56AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling: Guile I think is LGPLv3 although parts may be GPL -- but that's only for the current development release (i.e. 1.9.x). 1.8.x is still under LGPLv2+. Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So, lilypond then has to switch to GPLv3... No, that's nonsense. Guile 1.8.7 was still released under LGPLv2, so we simply continue to link to that in GUB. If somebody compiles lilypond from the source and links to guile 1.9 or 2.0, then that's *their* problem. We're not distributing those versions. Now, at some point, there will be some important bug fix or new feature in guile 1.9, which is only published under v3. *Then* we'd have problems... but wait! If guile is truly under LGPL, and not GPL, then there should be no problems. I mean, if you can link to closed-source apps (the whole point of LGPL), then surely a mere GPLv2 app can still link to the library? ** please note the above was not an informed opinion. It would be nice if somebody looked into all these reasons, in a calm and collected way, so that we could see exactly which libraries might force us to use GPLv3, which version numbers this started at. But then we have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising clause, thus incompatible with GPL) or GPLv2 only... I don't think there's any problem with linking to a BSD library. ** please note that I don't really know what freetype does, or if it's actually a library at all. *** NB: I know that the FSF has a different definition of linking than other people (i.e. BSD guys), so this would also be worth looking into. Fundamentally, the current discussion is too shrill, with too many semi-informed people (no offense to anybody) making dire predictions and proclaiming that lilypond _must_ do X, Y, and Z. 1) The first step is to gather information about the licensing requirements for any external projects we use. Pay particular attention to the *actual* requirements, i.e. not just we include project X in GUB, so we must foo or project Y has a 3 in the license name, so we must use GPLv3. 2) The next step is to consider whether any change needs to be made at all. I'm pretty certain that right now, everything is kosher. 3) If any change might be desirable in the future (for example, Guile -- *if* guile wasn't LGPL), then we can begin looking at which developers consent to such a change. 4) If anybody can't be reached or doesn't consent, *then* we look at exactly what that person wrote, and either abandon the change idea (knowing exactly what that entails as far as using libraries or finding replacement libraries), or rewrite their constributions. Starting with step 4 is just silly. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 09:10:20 schrieb Graham Percival: On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:46:56AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling: Guile I think is LGPLv3 although parts may be GPL -- but that's only for the current development release (i.e. 1.9.x). 1.8.x is still under LGPLv2+. Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So, lilypond then has to switch to GPLv3... No, that's nonsense. Guile 1.8.7 was still released under LGPLv2, so we simply continue to link to that in GUB. If somebody compiles lilypond from the source and links to guile 1.9 or 2.0, then that's *their* problem. We're not distributing those versions. Putting your head into the sand isn't going to solve the problem. After all, every distribution compiles from source and distributes those versions. You can't seriously expect all distributions to change their build system just for lilypond. Now, at some point, there will be some important bug fix or new feature in guile 1.9, which is only published under v3. *Then* we'd have problems... but wait! If guile is truly under LGPL, and not GPL, then there should be no problems. I mean, if you can link to closed-source apps (the whole point of LGPL), then surely a mere GPLv2 app can still link to the library? No, because LGPL has additional restrictions. The problem is not that we would be violating guile's license, but lilypond's license does not allow linking to a LGPLv3 library. So basically, you are telling all package maintainers of all distributions to violate the copyright of all lilypond contributors. It would be nice if somebody looked into all these reasons, in a calm and collected way, so that we could see exactly which libraries might force us to use GPLv3, which version numbers this started at. It is our own restrictive license, where the lilypond developers have practically been saying (by licensing as GPLv2only) that they don't want lilypond to link to any (L)GPLv3 libraries. But then we have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising clause, thus incompatible with GPL) or GPLv2 only... I don't think there's any problem with linking to a BSD library. It's BSD WITH advertising clause (three-clause version!), which is not compatible with GPL. It is not the two-clause version, which is compatible with the GPL. 2) The next step is to consider whether any change needs to be made at all. I'm pretty certain that right now, everything is kosher. So far, I couldn't find a problem, either. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKtdkiTqjEwhXvPN0RAnCyAJ0VAGRo+sfd+HHNYE/dgPFCNBhDSgCfQm48 SnlzFZsUK52n3+796UNuNmo= =5xVv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 09:26:25AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 09:10:20 schrieb Graham Percival: Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So, lilypond then has to switch to GPLv3... No, that's nonsense. Guile 1.8.7 was still released under LGPLv2, so we simply continue to link to that in GUB. If somebody compiles lilypond from the source and links to guile 1.9 or 2.0, then that's *their* problem. We're not distributing those versions. Putting your head into the sand isn't going to solve the problem. After all, every distribution compiles from source and distributes those versions. You can't seriously expect all distributions to change their build system just for lilypond. I'm not putting my head in the sand. Distributions can take care of themselves. Now, when guile 2.0 comes out as LGPLv3, I'm sure that distributions would *like* us to switch to GPLv3. I'm not saying that we shouldn't *consider* switching. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it would be *nice and polite* for us to switch. However, it is false to say that lilypond can't use guile any more. We *can* still use it (albeit an older version), and I'm not going to panic just because not switch would make redhat's job harder. We will switch after serious consideration, at a time that is convenient for us. Please note that I'm confident that ultimately we _will_ switch. But I -- and certain other developers -- disgusted by the shrill claims that we MUST do X, especially when it turns out that there is no such legal necessity at all. Now, at some point, there will be some important bug fix or new feature in guile 1.9, which is only published under v3. *Then* we'd have problems... but wait! If guile is truly under LGPL, and not GPL, then there should be no problems. I mean, if you can link to closed-source apps (the whole point of LGPL), then surely a mere GPLv2 app can still link to the library? No, because LGPL has additional restrictions. The problem is not that we would be violating guile's license, but lilypond's license does not allow linking to a LGPLv3 library. So basically, you are telling all package maintainers of all distributions to violate the copyright of all lilypond contributors. No, I am not telling them to do that. I am saying that, if guile 2.0 comes out and we have not switched, they should link to guile-1.8 if they want to legally distribute lilypond. Perhaps there is a problem of language here -- the word must is very strong in English. For example, if x is greater than 5, then it must be greater than 4. must means that there is no possibility of an alternate option. In the case of linking to a specific verison number of a library, I agree that it would be quite inconvenient. But quite inconenient is not the same thing as impossible. So therefore, the word must is incorrect. I'd also like more details about the GPLv2 linking to LGPLv3 library issue. It would be nice if somebody looked into all these reasons, in a calm and collected way, so that we could see exactly which libraries might force us to use GPLv3, which version numbers this started at. It is our own restrictive license, where the lilypond developers have practically been saying (by licensing as GPLv2only) that they don't want lilypond to link to any (L)GPLv3 libraries. Nobody has said that they don't want lilypond to link to LGPLv3. If there is a solid legal reason why GPLv2 cannot link to a LGPLv3 license, please state it clearly. I am not arguing that there *isn't* such a solid legal reason; I have not spent an hour reading those licenses recently. But at the same time, I am not aware of any such reason. But then we have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising clause, thus incompatible with GPL) or GPLv2 only... I don't think there's any problem with linking to a BSD library. It's BSD WITH advertising clause (three-clause version!), which is not compatible with GPL. It is not the two-clause version, which is compatible with the GPL. I think you mean four-clause version, but agreed. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So, lilypond then has to switch to GPLv3... But then we have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising clause, thus incompatible with GPL) or GPLv2 only... Argh. I wasn't aware of the LGPLv3/GPLv2 incompatibility until now. That's nasty. :-( I really love it how FSF handles the GPL purely for political reasons... (Which might make sense from an abstract viewpoint, but in daily developer life that is just counterproductive and hindering productive development!) To be honest, as an open source developer, I'm really starting disliking the GPL, simply for practical reasons. Well, they are a political organisation. They aren't there to make your life as a developer easy -- and if you follow their practical advice, you don't end up in these situations. (They are also generally pretty good about taking into account the practical issues that will be raised by any licensing change, and trying to minimise them.) That was one of the motivations for tracking who was OK with GPLv2+ -- to have an advance list of people ready for such an eventuality. See e.g. what KDE did a while ago: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing I propose we also keep such a list (publicly available) about what the devs allow with regards to their licenses. I am already doing so, although not as detailed as KDE's. http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkXkBLpoZm-_dHdkUUZRRVJvX2ZHWVpOeloyTU00SHchl=en It's on Sheet 2 :-) Best wishes, -- Joe ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 10:11:54 schrieb Graham Percival: No, because LGPL has additional restrictions. The problem is not that we would be violating guile's license, but lilypond's license does not allow linking to a LGPLv3 library. So basically, you are telling all package maintainers of all distributions to violate the copyright of all lilypond contributors. No, I am not telling them to do that. I am saying that, if guile 2.0 comes out and we have not switched, they should link to guile-1.8 if they want to legally distribute lilypond. Okay, and what do you think will happen in reality? I don't think distributions will be willing to spend time and resources on providing outdated software/libraries, simply because lilypond wants old versions. I'd rather say lilypond will be dropped instead, citing licensing issues with lilypond. Perhaps there is a problem of language here -- the word must is very strong in English. For example, if x is greater than 5, then it must be greater than 4. must means that there is no possibility of an alternate option. What I didn't write down, but implicitly assumed was the half-sentence if we/they want to use the current, installed library versions. Then it is a MUST. I'd also like more details about the GPLv2 linking to LGPLv3 library issue. [...] It is our own restrictive license, where the lilypond developers have practically been saying (by licensing as GPLv2only) that they don't want lilypond to link to any (L)GPLv3 libraries. Nobody has said that they don't want lilypond to link to LGPLv3. If there is a solid legal reason why GPLv2 cannot link to a LGPLv3 license, please state it clearly. See: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility I am not arguing that there *isn't* such a solid legal reason; I have not spent an hour reading those licenses recently. But at the same time, I am not aware of any such reason. The LGPLv3 also includes the patents clause and the anti-DRM clause, which both add additional restrictions, which the GPLv2 does not have. On the other hand, all lilypond contributors -- by putting their code under GPLv2only -- explicitly say that they do not agree to any additional restrictions. Thus lilypond can't link to any (L)GPLv3 library, which would add additional restrictions. But then we have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising clause, thus incompatible with GPL) or GPLv2 only... I don't think there's any problem with linking to a BSD library. It's BSD WITH advertising clause (three-clause version!), which is not compatible with GPL. It is not the two-clause version, which is compatible with the GPL. I think you mean four-clause version, but agreed. Of course. OTOH, the FTL is not the BSD, as my mail might suggest (sorry for the confusion). It is rather a completely different license containing some attribution clause, making it incompatible with GPLv2 (for the same reasons as the 4-clause BSD lisense). But apparently it is compatible with GPLv3, so we don't have any problems with FT, should we switch to GPLv3. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKthNXTqjEwhXvPN0RAlA7AJ4utIuEPYxPKZpiSB0E5a1UOpgJaQCgia3a n6IcEl3i2R096PIfM3SQOBo= =9/rh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 08:18:14PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote: Graham Percival wrote: There's a *ton* of other janitorial work to be done, especially by people who have proven that they're willing to do work (about 50% of people who say hey, I want to help out never do anything!). And not only that, but you're capable of using git! There's lots of stuff that needs doing for the new website, for example. OK. I have not been following those discussions closely but if you can give me a rough todo list I will see what I can contribute in that respect and prioritise it over any copyright work. I would have thought that http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-09/msg00438.html was right up your alley. If you're not interested, I made a post on -user in Aug when people were whining about how much they wanted to help but couldn't learn git. There were approximately 6 items that could be done without touching any source code, but nobody did any significant work on any of them. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
Graham Percival wrote: I would have thought that http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-09/msg00438.html was right up your alley. Yep. I was having a bit of a look through what's there to see what would be involved. I'll see what I can do ... ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 01:08:34AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote: The main aim is not relicensing but just to try and get a handle on who wrote what parts of Lilypond. As long as we know who contributed to lilypond (that's a separate question), knowing exactly who wrote what is only useful if we want to change the license, but cannot get permission from everybody. (i.e. so we know what we need to rewrite) Earlier, you wrote something like get a bit of work done now, so that there's no great loss of effort. I think you should drop the per-file thing, and just add the licenses and pointers to licenses in non-main files. There's a *ton* of other janitorial work to be done, especially by people who have proven that they're willing to do work (about 50% of people who say hey, I want to help out never do anything!). And not only that, but you're capable of using git! There's lots of stuff that needs doing for the new website, for example. If you really want to keep on doing copyright stuff, then I'd suggest that you look into the licenses of the projects which lilypond *links* to. Stuff like ghostscript doesn't matter, since we only call it on the command-line. But it would be good to know, for example, what license guile 1.8 is under, if they changed to GPLv3 when did it happen, etc. I'm pretty certain that we're fine right now, but as more and more projects switch to GPLv3, we might suddenly discoved that we can't link to pango or freetype or something like that. It would be great if we had a list of such projects, so that if/when we seriously discover any license switch (again, in a few months) we have that info handy. I'm then entering these details into a Google Docs spreadsheet (which I'll share with anyone who requests it). The same spreadsheet also contains a complete list of contributors (from Francisco's .mailmap) and a note on whether they support switching the license to GPLv2+ and whether they are willing to dual-license doc contributions as GPLv2+. There's no dual-licensing of doc contributions. Docs are currently FDL 1.1 or later (sigh). Code is GPLv2. Exceptions to this (such as cary.ly) should be remedied. To put it formally: if a contributor has offered some documentation under either FDL 1.1 or GPLv2, then we accept the FDL 1.1 version and do not accept the GPLv2 version. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
Graham Percival wrote: There's a *ton* of other janitorial work to be done, especially by people who have proven that they're willing to do work (about 50% of people who say hey, I want to help out never do anything!). And not only that, but you're capable of using git! There's lots of stuff that needs doing for the new website, for example. OK. I have not been following those discussions closely but if you can give me a rough todo list I will see what I can contribute in that respect and prioritise it over any copyright work. I also have to get back to the contemporary music documentation, which I've been neglecting ... If you really want to keep on doing copyright stuff, then I'd suggest that you look into the licenses of the projects which lilypond *links* to. Stuff like ghostscript doesn't matter, since we only call it on the command-line. But it would be good to know, for example, what license guile 1.8 is under, if they changed to GPLv3 when did it happen, etc. Yes, I think that's a good idea and will start tracking those things. Guile I think is LGPLv3 although parts may be GPL -- but that's only for the current development release (i.e. 1.9.x). 1.8.x is still under LGPLv2+. I'm pretty certain that we're fine right now, but as more and more projects switch to GPLv3, we might suddenly discoved that we can't link to pango or freetype or something like that. It would be great if we had a list of such projects, so that if/when we seriously discover any license switch (again, in a few months) we have that info handy. That was one of the motivations for tracking who was OK with GPLv2+ -- to have an advance list of people ready for such an eventuality. There's no dual-licensing of doc contributions. Docs are currently FDL 1.1 or later (sigh). Code is GPLv2. Exceptions to this (such as cary.ly) should be remedied. Just tracking willingness, rather than proposing a change. It seemed worthwhile to see who would sign up for the Debian maintainer's proposal of dual-licensing the docs. On the broader scheme of things I'm going to keep tracing the contributors to individual files (but not with incredible speed). Besides any usefulness for Lilypond I have a vested interest which has nothing to do with Lilypond or licensing per se, but relates to a project that stems from my day job: http://project.liquidpub.org/ http://github.com/WebDrake/liquidpub-dvcs https://code.launchpad.net/~webdrake/liquidpub/peer-review ... so learning about tracing/tracking contributions and contributors in a version control system is interesting to me anyway, and since it's unlikely to HURT Lilypond and might be of some use, I might as well follow that interest ... :-) Best wishes, -- Joe ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:18:14 schrieb Joseph Wakeling: If you really want to keep on doing copyright stuff, then I'd suggest that you look into the licenses of the projects which lilypond *links* to. Stuff like ghostscript doesn't matter, since we only call it on the command-line. But it would be good to know, for example, what license guile 1.8 is under, if they changed to GPLv3 when did it happen, etc. Yes, I think that's a good idea and will start tracking those things. Guile I think is LGPLv3 although parts may be GPL -- but that's only for the current development release (i.e. 1.9.x). 1.8.x is still under LGPLv2+. Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So, lilypond then has to switch to GPLv3... But then we have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising clause, thus incompatible with GPL) or GPLv2 only... I really love it how FSF handles the GPL purely for political reasons... (Which might make sense from an abstract viewpoint, but in daily developer life that is just counterproductive and hindering productive development!) To be honest, as an open source developer, I'm really starting disliking the GPL, simply for practical reasons. I'm pretty certain that we're fine right now, but as more and more projects switch to GPLv3, we might suddenly discoved that we can't link to pango or freetype or something like that. It would be great if we had a list of such projects, so that if/when we seriously discover any license switch (again, in a few months) we have that info handy. That was one of the motivations for tracking who was OK with GPLv2+ -- to have an advance list of people ready for such an eventuality. See e.g. what KDE did a while ago: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing I propose we also keep such a list (publicly available) about what the devs allow with regards to their licenses. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKtW1xTqjEwhXvPN0RAkFFAJ9qOe3dAbL1TyjsCO4SGF7veAdJPwCgxvIC szoL0Pa2ZmHEtQSBsipo+oQ= =6NRK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
Ouch. so as soon as a LGPLv3 version of guile comes out, lilypond can't use guile any more, because LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2... So, lilypond then has to switch to GPLv3... But then we have a problem with freetype, which is FTL (BSD with advertising clause, thus incompatible with GPL) or GPLv2 only... I can change FreeType's license easily if necessary. Don't worry about that. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
In message f329bf540909131736n512e3265tb88d5fc91c88f...@mail.gmail.com, Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Anthony W. Youngman lilyp...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: So your idea is basically postponing the problem to a time, where we might not be able to solve it properly any more? Nope. My idea is basically saying let's face reality. Some people will never agree to or later so let's have a contingency in place. Seeing as that seems to include certain MAJOR contributors like Han-Wen, then having that contingency seems to be a very good idea. Please don't speak for me. I am not opposed to GPL v3, but I don't want to be involved in any of the legal (or laymen-people-interpreting-law) and bikeshedding discussions that this 'upgrade' has to involve. Ie. please reach consensus without me. Apologies if I was out of turn. From what Jan said, I got the impression you were very much against the or later clause, and that's all I've ever attributed to you. If you're not opposed to v3, would you mind sending Joseph (and the list) an email relicensing your code v2 or v3? That way we've moved on a bit. If you've changed your mind about or later and you could relicence v2+ that would be great from Joseph's point of view. Whether the aim is to go v2+ or v3, I hope you agree that, at least, v3 COMPATIBILITY is important, and that you'll help us get there. Then you can leave it to the armchair lawyers :-) Sorry if I'm ruffling feathers, but I'm trying to focus on what is achievable, even if I'm pouring cold water on some peoples' aspirations - I got involved in this thread because I'm interested in legal matters (I track Groklaw, debian.legal ... you see what I mean ...) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
Graham Percival wrote: I know you all want to rush ahead on this, but this is one issue which will not be rushed. Later today, I have the choice of working on GUB and dealing with this thread; I will prioritize GUB (and therefore making releases, particularly ones with fixed OSX 10.5 for both 2.13 and 2.12). From my point of view that shouldn't be an issue. Patches I've submitted are as examples for people to comment on rather than with expectation that they be reviewed/accepted quickly. I will push ahead with tracking contributions to code, but not make/submit any further new patches until this debate is better addressed. Best wishes, -- Joe ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
Op zondag 13-09-2009 om 23:00 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Anthony W. Youngman: they will (presumably already) Please do not speak for me. have switched the licence on their contributions. Also, please do not make any suggestions or hints of any [individual] license changes, and esp. not of code of which you are not the copyright holder. I am sure that none of the major contributors ever had any doubt about the copyright and licensing status of LilyPond. Greetings, Jan. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
In message 4aac29f2.1000...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes I'm then entering these details into a Google Docs spreadsheet (which I'll share with anyone who requests it). The same spreadsheet also contains a complete list of contributors (from Francisco's .mailmap) and a note on whether they support switching the license to GPLv2+ and whether they are willing to dual-license doc contributions as GPLv2+. I think you don't understand copyright properly ... DON'T track whether they support switching the licence. Because if they do, they will (presumably already) have switched the licence on their contributions. For each contributor you want to track the licence THEY have used. Obviously, it's v2-compatible - it must be. So I would suggest the spreadsheet contain the following columns ... Contributor, licence, v3 compatible?, date, comment You are exhibiting a touching, blind, blinkered faith in the FSF. If I may speak for Han-Wen, I don't think he shares that faith. There may well be lilypond contributors who don't believe in the GPL, surprising as that may sound! But there's nothing stopping BSD believers (who may find the GPL offensive!) from contributing to lilypond. DO NOT try to switch the licence to v2+. You will probably run into a brick wall! And if the eventual plan is to be v3-compatible you're setting yourself up for failure! Use your spreadsheet to *track* *all* the licences to lilypond, not restrict the licences you can handle to an arbitrary subset of the licences you think other people should use (that attitude is offensive). That way, your spreadsheet will actually BE USEFUL. And it might achieve something POSITIVE. As you describe your intentions, the spreadsheet looks pretty useless at the moment. As it is, I find your emphasis on v2+ offensive, and I doubt I'm alone. Given the choice of v2 or v2+, I'd go for v2 only. But if you ask me what licence would *I* choose?, my reply would be v2/v3. See what I mean about your approach being counter-productive? I repeat. Sod *your* choice of favourite licences. Just *track* the licences contributors have chosen, and then you can also track whether the licences are v3-compatible. If you ask Han-Wen will you change your licence to v2/v3 I think you stand a decent chance of getting a yes. If you ask will you change to v2+? you'll almost certainly get a flat NO! By the way, I said to put a column in the spreadsheet called date. That spreadsheet should be in the source code, probably in a LICENSING subdirectory, along with copies of all the emails contributors send confirming their license. That way you can track how and when people change licensing. (And you're not adding yet ANOTHER dependency, namely Google Docs, that people have to have if they're going to contribute to lilypond. And how do they patch the spreadsheet, if you screw up? I certainly don't want Google Docs on my system!) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
Anthony W. Youngman wrote: I think you don't understand copyright properly ... DON'T track whether they support switching the licence. Because if they do, they will (presumably already) have switched the licence on their contributions. ... but we have no records of that switch, because copyright and licensing details have not been tracked on a per-file or per-contribution base. If the license has not been stated within the code they contributed, it can't be assumed by users of Lilypond, regardless of verbal/email assurances (which most users won't know about anyway). For each contributor you want to track the licence THEY have used. Obviously, it's v2-compatible - it must be. So I would suggest the spreadsheet contain the following columns ... Contributor, licence, v3 compatible?, date, comment That's a very good suggestion and I will follow it. You are exhibiting a touching, blind, blinkered faith in the FSF. If I may speak for Han-Wen, I don't think he shares that faith. There may well be lilypond contributors who don't believe in the GPL, surprising as that may sound! But there's nothing stopping BSD believers (who may find the GPL offensive!) from contributing to lilypond. DO NOT try to switch the licence to v2+. You will probably run into a brick wall! And if the eventual plan is to be v3-compatible you're setting yourself up for failure! I stress that the main point of my activity is not to switch the license (a decision not for me to take) but to attempt to identify who made significant (i.e. copyrightable) contributions what to which files. Use your spreadsheet to *track* *all* the licences to lilypond, not restrict the licences you can handle to an arbitrary subset of the licences you think other people should use (that attitude is offensive). That way, your spreadsheet will actually BE USEFUL. And it might achieve something POSITIVE. As you describe your intentions, the spreadsheet looks pretty useless at the moment. Yes, very fair point -- I do not want to force a license choice on anyone. The main point of the spreadsheet is not in any case to track license choices but contributions. Perhaps you would like to take a look: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkXkBLpoZm-_dHdkUUZRRVJvX2ZHWVpOeloyTU00SHchl=en As it is, I find your emphasis on v2+ offensive, and I doubt I'm alone. Given the choice of v2 or v2+, I'd go for v2 only. But if you ask me what licence would *I* choose?, my reply would be v2/v3. See what I mean about your approach being counter-productive? Again, fair point. I've no wish to argue (now) the merits of different licensing choices. I repeat. Sod *your* choice of favourite licences. Just *track* the licences contributors have chosen, and then you can also track whether the licences are v3-compatible. If you ask Han-Wen will you change your licence to v2/v3 I think you stand a decent chance of getting a yes. If you ask will you change to v2+? you'll almost certainly get a flat NO! The only reason for mentioning v2+ was just to get an idea of the number of people willing to relicense in a way that could satisfy all other licensing desires -- not an attempt to force it on anyone. Note that in the sample patch I posted the license was very clearly v2 only -- the existing license of Lilypond. Not really the actions of someone trying to ram his 'favourite license' down everyone's throats, is it? By the way, I said to put a column in the spreadsheet called date. That spreadsheet should be in the source code, probably in a LICENSING subdirectory, along with copies of all the emails contributors send confirming their license. That way you can track how and when people change licensing. (And you're not adding yet ANOTHER dependency, namely Google Docs, that people have to have if they're going to contribute to lilypond. And how do they patch the spreadsheet, if you screw up? I certainly don't want Google Docs on my system!) Eh??!!! Google Docs is a web app, you don't have to have anything on your system. It's just handy because this way I can share a link (like above) that lets anyone view the progress of my work, and I can also open the document to others who want to contribute. I can export the data to OpenOffice, Excel or any damn format you like -- it can wind up as a comma- or tab-separated text file if you really want it to. It's not about requiring Lilypond to do anything, it's just something that is useful for me, now, actually trying to work out who authored what. And since I don't see anyone else wanting to take on that (arguably sensible) task, it might be nice to let me get on with it without beating me over the head for what you assume are my intentions regarding Lilypond's license(*). Thanks nevertheless for your useful suggestions -- I hope this email clears up what I do and don't intend. I'll update the licensing part of the spreadsheet accordingly. Best wishes, -- Joe (*) If I _was_ going
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 14. September 2009 00:00:28 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman: DON'T track whether they support switching the licence. Because if they do, they will (presumably already) have switched the licence on their contributions. I don't think so. Many contributors simply don't mind a bit about the license and the formalities. Coding and the results are more important than dealing with stupid license headers, etc. For each contributor you want to track the licence THEY have used. Obviously, it's v2-compatible - it must be. So I would suggest the spreadsheet contain the following columns ... Contributor, licence, v3 compatible?, date, comment You are exhibiting a touching, blind, blinkered faith in the FSF. If I may speak for Han-Wen, I don't think he shares that faith. There may well be lilypond contributors who don't believe in the GPL, surprising as that may sound! But there's nothing stopping BSD believers (who may find the GPL offensive!) from contributing to lilypond. My understanding has always been that contributions should be GPL v2... DO NOT try to switch the licence to v2+. You will probably run into a brick wall! And if the eventual plan is to be v3-compatible you're setting yourself up for failure! I think the eventual plan should be to be GPL-compatible in the long run, so v2+ would really be best. Otherwise we'll have much bigger headaches one GPL v4 comes out and libraries start switching to it. Use your spreadsheet to *track* *all* the licences to lilypond, Please, do we really need a law firm to keep up lilypond development? not restrict the licences you can handle to an arbitrary subset of the licences you think other people should use (that attitude is offensive). Huh? We are a GNU project, and the guidelines of GNU are GPL (Which doesn't mean that everyone is forced to use GPL, but that the standard license SHOULD be the GPL). so I don't see the v2+ discussion as offensive, but as the only sane choice that ensures that in 5 years down the road lilypond will still be able to use up-to-date tools. for example, what would we do if freetype changed its license to GPL v4 (their freetype license is GPL-incompatible, so we rely on their GPL, which is v2, btw)? We'd be doomed, because we couldn't link to freetype any more. And tracking down early contributors becames harder each day. As it is, I find your emphasis on v2+ offensive, and I doubt I'm alone. Given the choice of v2 or v2+, I'd go for v2 only. But if you ask me what licence would *I* choose?, my reply would be v2/v3. See what I mean about your approach being counter-productive? I repeat. Sod *your* choice of favourite licences. Just *track* the licences contributors have chosen, and then you can also track whether the licences are v3-compatible. So your idea is basically postponing the problem to a time, where we might not be able to solve it properly any more? Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKrXlUTqjEwhXvPN0RAmAMAKCOwr7TzK7Q+yJ6YflW9EsF9v3/LQCfQbmY kOaVkojYgTQ40Co+561+7oc= =T/zL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
In message 4aad7567.5060...@webdrake.net, Joseph Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes Thanks nevertheless for your useful suggestions -- I hope this email clears up what I do and don't intend. I'll update the licensing part of the spreadsheet accordingly. Sounds good. Best wishes, -- Joe (*) If I _was_ going to try and force my 'favourite license' on people I'd be jumping up and down trying to get everyone to go with the AGPL. But I'm not. So I won't. Sorry. It's just that v2+ kept on coming up despite other emails saying it was not a good idea. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
In message 200909140059.35325.reinh...@kainhofer.com, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes Am Montag, 14. September 2009 00:00:28 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman: DON'T track whether they support switching the licence. Because if they do, they will (presumably already) have switched the licence on their contributions. I don't think so. Many contributors simply don't mind a bit about the license and the formalities. Coding and the results are more important than dealing with stupid license headers, etc. Unfortunately, taking an ostrich attitude with the law is rarely productive... You are exhibiting a touching, blind, blinkered faith in the FSF. If I may speak for Han-Wen, I don't think he shares that faith. There may well be lilypond contributors who don't believe in the GPL, surprising as that may sound! But there's nothing stopping BSD believers (who may find the GPL offensive!) from contributing to lilypond. My understanding has always been that contributions should be GPL v2... The overall licence is v2, therefore contributions need to be at least v2-compatible. DO NOT try to switch the licence to v2+. You will probably run into a brick wall! And if the eventual plan is to be v3-compatible you're setting yourself up for failure! I think the eventual plan should be to be GPL-compatible in the long run, so v2+ would really be best. Otherwise we'll have much bigger headaches one GPL v4 comes out and libraries start switching to it. I agree v2+ is best. I just also think people like Han-Wen and Linus have a point. That means that, for some people, the + is going to be a non-starter. Use your spreadsheet to *track* *all* the licences to lilypond, Please, do we really need a law firm to keep up lilypond development? Nope. But being an ostrich doesn't help... if we don't know what licence individual contributors have used, we're going to have problems when v4 comes out... not restrict the licences you can handle to an arbitrary subset of the licences you think other people should use (that attitude is offensive). Huh? We are a GNU project, and the guidelines of GNU are GPL (Which doesn't mean that everyone is forced to use GPL, but that the standard license SHOULD be the GPL). so I don't see the v2+ discussion as offensive, but as the only sane choice that ensures that in 5 years down the road lilypond will still be able to use up-to-date tools. v2+ is sane FOR LILYPOND for exactly the reasons you suggest. But it is INSANE for some developers because it hands control over MY code to YOU (for various values of you - in this case the FSF). for example, what would we do if freetype changed its license to GPL v4 (their freetype license is GPL-incompatible, so we rely on their GPL, which is v2, btw)? We'd be doomed, because we couldn't link to freetype any more. And tracking down early contributors becames harder each day. Well, what would we do now? At least if we know that certain chunks of code are v2 only, we can put contingency plans in place. As it is, I find your emphasis on v2+ offensive, and I doubt I'm alone. Given the choice of v2 or v2+, I'd go for v2 only. But if you ask me what licence would *I* choose?, my reply would be v2/v3. See what I mean about your approach being counter-productive? I repeat. Sod *your* choice of favourite licences. Just *track* the licences contributors have chosen, and then you can also track whether the licences are v3-compatible. So your idea is basically postponing the problem to a time, where we might not be able to solve it properly any more? Nope. My idea is basically saying let's face reality. Some people will never agree to or later so let's have a contingency in place. Seeing as that seems to include certain MAJOR contributors like Han-Wen, then having that contingency seems to be a very good idea. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Anthony W. Youngman lilyp...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: So your idea is basically postponing the problem to a time, where we might not be able to solve it properly any more? Nope. My idea is basically saying let's face reality. Some people will never agree to or later so let's have a contingency in place. Seeing as that seems to include certain MAJOR contributors like Han-Wen, then having that contingency seems to be a very good idea. Please don't speak for me. I am not opposed to GPL v3, but I don't want to be involved in any of the legal (or laymen-people-interpreting-law) and bikeshedding discussions that this 'upgrade' has to involve. Ie. please reach consensus without me. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 09:36:47PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Please don't speak for me. I am not opposed to GPL v3, but I don't want to be involved in any of the legal (or laymen-people-interpreting-law) and bikeshedding discussions that this 'upgrade' has to involve. Ie. please reach consensus without me. Unlike Han-Wen, I *am* interested in armchair lawyering, but this thread began at an incredibly unfortunate time for me[1]. I have major problems with the direction this discussion took about 20 emails ago, but require more time before I can examine the issues closely. I know you all want to rush ahead on this, but this is one issue which will not be rushed. Later today, I have the choice of working on GUB and dealing with this thread; I will prioritize GUB (and therefore making releases, particularly ones with fixed OSX 10.5 for both 2.13 and 2.12). I know that some people might be disappointed by delaying any meaningful discussion on this issue[2] for another day or two, but I think the vast majority of users and developers would much rather get 2.13.4 and 2.12.3 out the door. Cheers, - Graham [1] http://percival-music.ca/blog/2009-09-14-my-kingdom-for-a-towel.html [2] yes, I am unapologetically calling the past few days' worth of discussion on this issue non-meaningful. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
Hello everyone,
A word or more about the action plan to deal with the
copyright/licensing issue raised earlier.
The main aim is not relicensing but just to try and get a handle on who
wrote what parts of Lilypond. So, for each code file, I'm using git
shortlog to get the list of contributors (thanks to Francisco's .mailmap
file this is much simplified) and then using gitk to browse the commit
history of the file.
I'm dividing commits into Tweaks and Contributions. Tweaks are things
like removing whitespace, changing a version statement, changing the
name of a symbol or function -- small editorial changes in other words.
Contributions involve addition of a reasonable amount of novel
material. Following the GNU guidelines at:
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html#Legally-Significant
I've taken the line that tweaks are not significant for copyright
purposes unless there are a lot of them (i.e. 10+). So far anyone with
10+ tweaks has also got at least one commit that counts as a
'contribution' anyway.
For each significant contributor (C) I note their earliest and most
recent commit and use that to date their copyright. In the event a
contributor already has a copyright notice in the file, I take the
earliest starting date of the two. For tweakers (T) I note the number
of tweaks (in commits).
I'm then entering these details into a Google Docs spreadsheet (which
I'll share with anyone who requests it). The same spreadsheet also
contains a complete list of contributors (from Francisco's .mailmap) and
a note on whether they support switching the license to GPLv2+ and
whether they are willing to dual-license doc contributions as GPLv2+.
The attached patch for lily/accidental.cc shows one result. A git
shortlog shows that the contributors are Han-Wen (68 commits), Jan (17),
Joe Neeman (8), and Mats Bengtsson and Neil Puttock (1 each) and Werner
Lemberg (2). Mats', Neil's and Werner's contributions are all small
tweaks, while Han-Wen, Jan and Joe have all made at least one
significant contribution. Han-Wen's first patch is dated from 2002, but
the existing copyright notice puts the beginning of his work in 2001; so
I've taken the earlier date, but kept the final date at 2008 with his
last commit. Jan's commits date from 2002-2009 and Joe's from
2007-2009. The proposed copyright/licensing notice gives copyright to
all 3 for the appropriate dates, and credits contributors of tweaks and
corrections without declaring copyright for them.
Feedback (most of all from the authors!) on whether this notice is
acceptable would be gratefully received.
The docs are much more difficult to trace than code, with material
having been moved and copied and pasted all over the place. :-( But
when the code parts are finished, I'll see what I can do with them.
Best wishes,
-- Joe
From 848114f18748bb70f199e6d8f6a9c6cc0cdf6a32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:02:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] accidental.cc licensing and copyright notice.
* Contributions (major and minor) tracked via git logs
* Copyright credited to major contributors with dates
corresponding to first and last commit
* Contributors of small tweaks and corrections given
brief credit in alphabetical order
* ... and trailing whitespace correction courtesy
of Kate editor :-)
---
lily/accidental.cc | 35 ++-
1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lily/accidental.cc b/lily/accidental.cc
index a017cf8..16d57e0 100644
--- a/lily/accidental.cc
+++ b/lily/accidental.cc
@@ -1,9 +1,26 @@
/*
accidental.cc -- implement Accidental_interface
- source file of the GNU LilyPond music typesetter
+ Copyright (c) 2001--2008 Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com
+ Copyright (c) 2002--2009 Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org
+ Copyright (c) 2007--2009 Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com
- (c) 2001--2009 Han-Wen Nienhuys han...@xs4all.nl
+ Small corrections and tweaks by Mats Bengtsson, Werner Lemberg
+ and Neil Puttock.
+
+ This source file is part of the GNU Lilypond music typesetter.
+
+ GNU Lilypond 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; version 2 of the License.
+
+ This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
+ with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
*/
#include accidental-interface.hh
@@ -19,7 +36,7 @@ Stencil
parenthesize (Grob *me, Stencil m)
{
Font_metric * font
-= Font_interface::get_default_font (me);
+= Font_interface::get_default_font (me);
Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]
2009/9/13 Joseph Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net: The main aim is not relicensing but just to try and get a handle on who wrote what parts of Lilypond. So, for each code file, I'm using git shortlog to get the list of contributors (thanks to Francisco's .mailmap file this is much simplified) and then using gitk to browse the commit history of the file. To honour the truth, I don't remember having sent any mailmap file, Reinhold has put one on Git. What I remember is to have said that the mailmap has NOT to be a complete list of contributors, it is only intended to merge on a single name and address those contributors that have multiple names or addresses. Also, I've not found the time to fix my own line as I said I was going to do. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
