Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-17 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
27;s not licensed LGPLv3-only. This outcome is indeed different from the outcome with LGPLv2.1. >> Josselin mentions the risks that might arise in specifying an "or >> later" license. They are real, but can be mitigated via the proxy >> clause in the (L)GPLv3. >>

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-16 Thread Joseph Pingenot
>From Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller on Friday, 09 July, 2010: >On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 16:53 +0200, Maciej Piechotka wrote: >> On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: >> > I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping >> > the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer,

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-15 Thread Alan Cox
> Not true! For example, when you assign to the FSF, the papers you sign > contain a number of guarantees. From an old version of the assignment > papers (you should contact the FSF if you are considering using this > language, as it might have been updated): > > 4. FSF agrees that all distrib

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-15 Thread Andy Wingo
r" license. They are real, but can be mitigated via the proxy clause in the (L)GPLv3. If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently a

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-14 Thread Christian Persch
Hi; > Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition > > to relicense has made a significant mistake. > > Anyone who licenses his work unde

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-14 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to > relicense has made a significant mistake. Anyone who licenses his work under a license “or l

(GPLv2|LGPLv3-or-later) (was Re: (L)GPLv3)

2010-07-10 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
Paul Cutler told me about this thread and suggested it might be useful if I commented. I think most of the issues have been well covered in the thread; I nevertheless quote some of the points below and make a few comments that hopefully might help to bookend the discussion. Juanjo Marin wrote at

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-09 Thread Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 16:53 +0200, Maciej Piechotka wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: > > I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping > > the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly becaus

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-09 Thread Maciej Piechotka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: > I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping > the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly because a lot of people making > products with GStreamer prefer it over lgplv

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-09 Thread Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly because a lot of people making products with GStreamer prefer it over lgplv3. If glib switched under us it would make our license stability a bit of a joke. If someone wants to use glib under th

PDF library (was: Re: (L)GPLv3)

2010-07-08 Thread Hubert Figuiere
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 19:45 +0200, Christian Persch wrote: > I can't be the only one who was excited about discovering there's a > LGPL3+ pdf library out there! I work a bit on evince, and I had never > heard about it. However, the excitement was brief, and terminated by > actually checking out th

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-08 Thread Ryan Lortie
hi Matthias, On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:01 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > I think any attempts to relicense the bigger platform libraries like > gtk or glib would end like the dbus relicensing efforts. We don't need anyone's permission to change the licence when the current licence includes "or at

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-08 Thread Behdad Esfahbod
On 07/08/2010 01:45 PM, Christian Persch wrote: > I can't be the only one who was excited about discovering there's a > LGPL3+ pdf library out there! I work a bit on evince, and I had never > heard about it. However, the excitement was brief, and terminated by > actually checking out the code... S

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-08 Thread Matthias Clasen
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote: > hi Everyone, > We have 3.0 upon us now, so I guess we should make a choice one way or > another. I think any attempts to relicense the bigger platform libraries like gtk or glib would end like the dbus relicensing efforts. ___

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-08 Thread Christian Persch
Hi; > > The problem is not only with third-party apps that use the platform. > > There are also some significant GPLv2 only libraries that GNOME apps > > may want to use. As examples, Poppler and ClamAV come to my mind. > > Incidentally, this is one of the major reasons that GNU PDF was made a >

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-08 Thread Andy Wingo
Hello, On Tue 06 Jul 2010 14:54, Holger Berndt writes: > On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400 Ryan Lortie wrote: > >> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: >> > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use >> > our platform but not GPLv2 apps? >> >> In short

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Florian Müllner
El mar, 06-07-2010 a las 12:32 -0500, Ted Gould escribió: > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > > It's the GPLv2 in the program code that states "you can't link this > > against anything other than GPLv2 code". > > > > Nothing we could add to the library licence (other than du

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Ted Gould
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote: > > IANAL but I'm > > curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to > > allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Per

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Rob Taylor
On 06/07/10 18:17, Ryan Lortie wrote: hi Ted, On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote: IANAL but I'm curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work,

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Ryan Lortie
hi Ted, On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote: > IANAL but I'm > curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to > allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work, that could be > GNOME policy going fo

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Ted Gould
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:34 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote: > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to > > relicense has made a significant m

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Alan Cox
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:01:54 +0200 Steve Frécinaux wrote: > On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote: > > hi Vincent, > > > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > >> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our > >> platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > >

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Maciej Piechotka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On 06/07/10 15:12, j...@jsschmid.de wrote: > Hi! > >> hi Vincent, >> >> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: >>> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our >>> platform but not GPLv2 apps? >> >> In sh

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Jean Brefort
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:49 +, j...@jsschmid.de a écrit : > Hi! > > > At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it > > would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the > > GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Steve Frécinaux
On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote: hi Vincent, On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our platform but not GPLv2 apps? In short, yes. Can't the platform libraries of gnome be considered as a developme

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Holger Berndt
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400 Ryan Lortie wrote: > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use > > our platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > In short, yes. > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread jhs
Hi! > At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it > would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the > GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't > mean that you have to change the licence of existing code -- you just > ke

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Vincent Untz
Hi, Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > hi Vincent, > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our > > platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > In short, yes. > > Anybody who has an appli

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread William Jon McCann
Hey Ryan, On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote: > hi Vincent, > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: >> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our >> platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > In short, yes. > > Anybody who has an application tha

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Vincent Untz
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:26 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote: > > Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still > > prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to > > GPLv3? > > No. > > A

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Ryan Lortie
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote: > Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still > prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to > GPLv3? No. At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it would c

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread jhs
Hi! > hi Vincent, > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: >> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our >> platform but not GPLv2 apps? > > In short, yes. > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > enough contributions th

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Ryan Lortie
hi Vincent, On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our > platform but not GPLv2 apps? In short, yes. Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted enough contributions that it has become an

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-06 Thread Vincent Untz
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 21:58 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > hi Vincent, > > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not > > sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the > > FSF; tha

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-05 Thread Ryan Lortie
hi Vincent, On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not > sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the > FSF; that's a major issue, and, IMHO, this doesn't go well with our > philosophy of

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-05 Thread Juanjo Marin
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 10:48 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > > hi Everyone, > > > > I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me > > to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2. > > > > I'm not

Re: (L)GPLv3

2010-07-05 Thread Vincent Untz
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 10:48 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > hi Everyone, > > I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me > to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2. > > I'm not really interested in inciting a flamewar on the topic or > anything,

(L)GPLv3

2010-07-05 Thread Ryan Lortie
hi Everyone, I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2. I'm not really interested in inciting a flamewar on the topic or anything, but I'm wondering how people feel, in general about the licensing direction