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