Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
Philip,

This is observed in Evolution also. The OpenChange hackers brought to
our notice and I'm with the Novell legal team to get this resolved
altogether. But that process seems like taking time and I have to wait a
but before doing anything.

-Srini.

On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 12:08 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
 Hi there,
 
 The README.COPYRIGHT of EDS's Camel states:
 
  * 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.
 
 Whereas a lot of files (like, camel-address.c, to pick one example) state:
 
  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
  * modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU Lesser General Public
  * License as published by the Free Software Foundation.
 
 It looks like EDS's COPYING file also uses the any later version
 version of the GPL v2.
 
 I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to have mixed licenses for one
 piece of code (being Camel). Would it be possible to change the license
 of all of EDS's files to be the same?
 
 Note that Novell/Ximian seems to be the copyright holder of all files,
 that of course means this organisation makes this decision.
 
 
 Thanks!
 

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
or later clause.

Jeff

On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 16:19 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
 Philip,
 
 This is observed in Evolution also. The OpenChange hackers brought to
 our notice and I'm with the Novell legal team to get this resolved
 altogether. But that process seems like taking time and I have to wait a
 but before doing anything.
 
 -Srini.
 
 On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 12:08 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  Hi there,
  
  The README.COPYRIGHT of EDS's Camel states:
  
   * 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.
  
  Whereas a lot of files (like, camel-address.c, to pick one example) state:
  
   * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
   * modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU Lesser General Public
   * License as published by the Free Software Foundation.
  
  It looks like EDS's COPYING file also uses the any later version
  version of the GPL v2.
  
  I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to have mixed licenses for one
  piece of code (being Camel). Would it be possible to change the license
  of all of EDS's files to be the same?
  
  Note that Novell/Ximian seems to be the copyright holder of all files,
  that of course means this organisation makes this decision.
  
  
  Thanks!
  
 
 ___
 Evolution-hackers mailing list
 Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
 It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
 or later clause.

For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange
and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and
LGPL v3 or with the or later clause.

The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries
would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,
Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this.

Which is something to avoid, I think.


 On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 16:19 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
  Philip,
  
  This is observed in Evolution also. The OpenChange hackers brought to
  our notice and I'm with the Novell legal team to get this resolved
  altogether. But that process seems like taking time and I have to wait a
  but before doing anything.
  
  -Srini.
  
  On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 12:08 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
   Hi there,
   
   The README.COPYRIGHT of EDS's Camel states:
   
* 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.
   
   Whereas a lot of files (like, camel-address.c, to pick one example) state:
   
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU Lesser General Public
* License as published by the Free Software Foundation.
   
   It looks like EDS's COPYING file also uses the any later version
   version of the GPL v2.
   
   I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to have mixed licenses for one
   piece of code (being Camel). Would it be possible to change the license
   of all of EDS's files to be the same?
   
   Note that Novell/Ximian seems to be the copyright holder of all files,
   that of course means this organisation makes this decision.
   
   
   Thanks!
   
  
  ___
  Evolution-hackers mailing list
  Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
  http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
 
 ___
 Evolution-hackers mailing list
 Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
 http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
-- 
Philip Van Hoof, software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://www.pvanhoof.be/blog




___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
(been having problems with the novell smtp server sending mail, so
apologies if this goes out twice).

On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
 On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
  It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
  or later clause.
 
 For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange
 and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and
 LGPL v3 or with the or later clause.
 
 The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries
 would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,
 Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this.
 
 Which is something to avoid, I think.

This is exactly why we want it to be LGPLv2 (pretty confidant that Camel
- if not all of EDS - is supposed to be LGPLv2 and not GPLv2 - it's one
of the reasons Werner Koch was considering relicensing GPGME to be LGPL
instead of GPL at one point, forget if he actually made the change or
not) and not (L)GPLv3 because software licensed under v3 of the license
can use v2 libs w/o any issues, but v2 cannot use v3.

There shouldn't be a need to dual license LGPLv2  LGPLv3, it should be
plenty to simply keep the LGPLv2 license that Camel is already under.

Jeff


___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Zan Lynx
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 11:34 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
 On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
[cut]
  The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries
  would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,
  Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this.
  
  Which is something to avoid, I think.
 
 It doesn't work that way... (L)GPLv3 apps/libs can use (L)GPLv2 libs
 without a problem, it's the other way around that doesn't work.

LGPLv2-only is OK, but not GPLv2-only.

Any binary resulting from a mixture containing GPLv2-only code must also
be GPLv2-only.  So a GPLv3 program cannot link with a GPLv2-only
library.  (unless, for other reasons, the link does not create a derived
work.)

-- 
Zan Lynx [EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 13:33 -0300, standel wrote:
  On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
   On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
or later clause.
   
   For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange
   and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and
   LGPL v3 or with the or later clause.
   
   The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries
   would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,
   Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this.
   
   Which is something to avoid, I think.
  
  It doesn't work that way... (L)GPLv3 apps/libs can use (L)GPLv2 libs
  without a problem, it's the other way around that doesn't work.
  
 
 I fear it's not that simple! see the GPL compatibility matrix :
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-699ce10b1f5d466cd4c3d61301c3651f0c2ca219
 
 you can't release a project under (L)GPLv3 if you're using a lib under 
 GPLv2-only.
 

Sounds like the FSF have screwed the pooch on this new license then,
don't it? ;)

Jeff


___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 13:33 -0300, standel wrote:
  On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
   On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
or later clause.
   
   For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange
   and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and
   LGPL v3 or with the or later clause.
   
   The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries
   would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,
   Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this.
   
   Which is something to avoid, I think.
  
  It doesn't work that way... (L)GPLv3 apps/libs can use (L)GPLv2 libs
  without a problem, it's the other way around that doesn't work.
  
 
 I fear it's not that simple! see the GPL compatibility matrix :
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-699ce10b1f5d466cd4c3d61301c3651f0c2ca219
 
 you can't release a project under (L)GPLv3 if you're using a lib under 
 GPLv2-only.

Apps under GPLv3 can link fine to EDS if EDS is licensed LGPLv2-only
just fine according to that matrix.

Jeff

 
 
 Regards,
 Sebastien Tandel
 

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's indiv idual source files

2007-10-09 Thread standel

 On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
   It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
   or later clause.
  
  For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange
  and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and
  LGPL v3 or with the or later clause.
  
  The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries
  would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,
  Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this.
  
  Which is something to avoid, I think.
 
 It doesn't work that way... (L)GPLv3 apps/libs can use (L)GPLv2 libs
 without a problem, it's the other way around that doesn't work.
 

I fear it's not that simple! see the GPL compatibility matrix :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-699ce10b1f5d466cd4c3d61301c3651f0c2ca219

you can't release a project under (L)GPLv3 if you're using a lib under 
GPLv2-only.


Regards,
Sebastien Tandel

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
The context I started the activity was on Evolution (mixed licenses of
V2-only and V2-or-later) where OpenChange wasn't able to write plugins
using SAMBA (V3) and OpenChange libmapi (V3) due to license mismatch. 

I saw that EDS also has these mixed licensing and Philip also pointed it
out and I thought I will take this up as well while dealing with the
legal team. EDS/Camel is should LGPLv2-or-later AFAIK when Harish
committed the changes around 2.6 times.

-Srini.

On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 11:34 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
 On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
  On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
   It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
   or later clause.
  
  For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange
  and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and
  LGPL v3 or with the or later clause.
  
  The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries
  would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,
  Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this.
  
  Which is something to avoid, I think.
 
 It doesn't work that way... (L)GPLv3 apps/libs can use (L)GPLv2 libs
 without a problem, it's the other way around that doesn't work.
 
 

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers