Re: [ccache] GPLv3
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:12:45 + William S Fulton w...@fultondesigns.co.uk wrote: [...] As the copyright holders have already licensed it under GPLv2 or later (later version is the key point here) and as GPL is copyleft, anyone can take the source and license it as GPLv3 or GPLv3 or later, so there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from doing this should they so wish. Of course, it would be polite to inform the contributors and discussion on this mailing list partly goes down that route, but you don't need consent... you only need to conform to the license and that includes redistributing under a later version. I think it's the politeness part that bugs me, at least in theory, regardless of what the licenses actually imply. If I have created, say, some GPLv2+-licensed code called goodstuff.c, I would be a bit annoyed if I found the file in projectX and the file had a GPLv3 header but was otherwise unmodified, since people who stumble on goodstuff.c in projectX then can't use it (or rather: don't know they can use it) in their GPLv2-only project even though my original code was GPLv2+. If the projectX guys have changed goodstuff.c, then I wouldn't mind since they of course may decide to GPLv3(+) their changes and thereby the combination of goodstuff.c and the changes. That said, this is all theory, and I'm not debating what the licenses say, only what I think should be common sense. I don't see any problem in practise in the ccache case, so I'll switch ccache to GPLv3+, unless anyone strongly objects. Contributors, be informed! -- Joel ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] GPLv3
Joel Rosdahl wrote: On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:26:48 + William S Fulton w...@fultondesigns.co.uk wrote: How about the new release is updated with the latest GPL - version 3? Given you are changing the ccache version number quite considerably, this would also be a good opportunity to update the license version to make it distinguishable from prior releases. I'm fine with upgrading to GPLv3+ (and I'm also fine with keeping GPLv2+). If I understand these things correctly (please correct me otherwise), I could just switch ccache (the work as a whole) to GPLv3+ since all code parts that ccache is made from are GPLv3+ compatible. Yes indeed. However, if upgrading, I would also prefer to relicense the core ccache files, so that the blurb at the top of those files says GPLv3+ to avoid confusion. My understanding is that I need consent from all copyright holders (10-15 people if you count all contributors) to do this. Am I correct? If so, it seems easier to just stick with GPLv2+. This last bit isn't quite right. The license is currently GPLv2+, so as quoted from the headers of the .c files: ... This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. ... As the copyright holders have already licensed it under GPLv2 or later (later version is the key point here) and as GPL is copyleft, anyone can take the source and license it as GPLv3 or GPLv3 or later, so there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from doing this should they so wish. Of course, it would be polite to inform the contributors and discussion on this mailing list partly goes down that route, but you don't need consent... you only need to conform to the license and that includes redistributing under a later version. Here are the GNU guidelines on how to upgrade: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade. As ccache isn't GNU, you don't have to follow this to the letter. I see some of the current source files are missing the GPL headers, which ought to be rectified at the same time, as all the code is GPL since the files are compiled and linked together. Can anyone motivate me or correct me? :-) Hopefully that helps! If you need any help doing it, I'll be happy to oblige, assuming there are no real objections to the GPL upgrade. Usual disclaimer... IANAL. William ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
Re: [ccache] GPLv3 (was: Release plan)
Hi Joel, However, if upgrading, I would also prefer to relicense the core ccache files, so that the blurb at the top of those files says GPLv3+ to avoid confusion. My understanding is that I need consent from all copyright holders (10-15 people if you count all contributors) to do this. Am I correct? If so, it seems easier to just stick with GPLv2+. You only need consent if any of the previous contributions did not have a or (at your option) any later version notice. It is completely up to you, but I would certainly support the change to GPLv3+. Make sure you keep the or later part though (ready for GPLv4), and update the address information to be the URL as per the recommended GPLv3 style. This would be an example header if you decide to do this: Copyright (C) Andrew Tridgell19xx-20xx Copyright (C) Joel Rossahl 2010-2010 This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. 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/. Cheers, Tridge ___ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
