Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Bastien Nocera > wrote: > > That's fine. The license of the compound work just has to be compatible > > with the individual files' licenses, it doesn't need to be

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > That's fine. The license of the compound work just has to be compatible > with the individual files' licenses, it doesn't need to be the exact > same one. > For example, you can have a project mixing GPLv2+, GPLv3+ and

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 07:56 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Carlos Soriano via > desktop-devel-list wrote: > > This is done now in > > https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/commit/?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc > > 0248dd05b17cb78252a788 >

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Carlos Soriano wrote: > Yeah maybe it's not sufficient. I can just create a custom LICENSE file that > says "license is in every file, all of them conpatible with gpl3+" or go > berseker and relicense every file to gpl3. Hmm no? What you

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

Yeah maybe it's not sufficient. I can just create a custom LICENSE file that says "license is in every file, all of them conpatible with gpl3+" or go berseker and relicense every file to gpl3. What notice do you mean? The license blurp in every file? On Tue., 18 Jul. 2017, 07:56 Alexandre

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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+

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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 05:5

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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+.

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+ / Licence Compatibility Matrix

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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...@gno

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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 Pozuel

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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 201

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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 >

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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

Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

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