Re: [Evolution-hackers] Evolution: Taking forward...
Hi Paul, On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 12:46 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: > Once you start accepting a significant amount of code without copyright > assignment, it will be difficult to the point of impossibility to change > the license again. Yes. Hence (in part) the choice of a more liberal / lesser license: that hopefully provides some safeguards here against future changes. > We can only assume that the FSF will, in the future, come out with a > GPLv4 and that this license will have its own set of incompatibilities > with the existing GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses (ditto for LGPL of course). Sure; but it seems unlikely that the LGPLv4 will be incompatible with the LGPLv3 or v2 - the 'lesser' nature of course allow even proprietary software to be linked to these. > IMO, if a software project is going to accept code without assignment > then they really should be using the "LGPLvX or later" license > structure, rather than providing a list of acceptable licenses. Sure - but there are real problems persuading lawyers to license code under a license that doesn't yet exist & that they havn't read :-) HTH, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Evolution: Taking forward...
Hi Paul, On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 15:30 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > * Move Evolution licensing to "LGPL v2 and LGPL v3" to let us re-use > > the code more easily around the platform. > > Did you mean LGPLv2 _or_ LGPLv3 here? Yes; it's dual licensed - which gives people rather a choice of licenses, GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv2, LGPLv3 etc. > Anyway, I am not familiar with libmapi, but it does indeed seem to be > (what is commonly referred to as) a library that is licensed under the > GPLv3. According to the FSF you can't release a project under the LGPLv2 > or LGPLv3 if you want to use a library under GPLv3. You'll have to > convert your LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 code to the GPLv3 [1]. Sure - so, IANAL etc. however I don't see a problem with a LGPLv3 / GPLv3 for the samba piece - I imagine, linking that in as a plugin makes Evo, with the current structure as a whole GPLv3; but without it potentially LGPLv2/GPLv2/LGPLv3 :-) AFAICS that gives some flexibility; but of course it's possible there are yet further un-anticipated problems ? :-) In the longer term, I'd prefer to see the samba piece isolated into a separate process. HTH, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Evolution: Taking forward...
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 04:21 -0600, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > We have had a set of problems that we are carrying around for some > time like : > > * Copyright assignments, which is not the best way looking for > the future of Evolution. It sucks and sort of limits contributions to > Evolution and we wanted to drop it. I agree with Paul S. that this can become problematic during later license changes. I suggest to either got for a "LGPL 2.1 or later" license (thus basically choosing GNU licenses forever) or changing the copyright agreement so that the copyright is transferred to some independent, non-profit organization instead of Novell. The GNU foundation perhaps? > * The current licensing incompatibility issues of Evolution with > Samba4/libmapi (GPLv3). Evolution needs to link with libmapi/samba4 > for the new mapi based connector being developed for Exchange 2007. > > So here is the plan : > > * Drop Evolution copyright assignments and make it really easy > to contribute to Evolution > * Move Evolution licensing to "LGPL v2 and LGPL v3" to let us > re-use the code more easily around the platform. This also moves us > closer to Thunderbird's MPL/LGPL model. This should be "LGPL v2.1 or later or GPL v3 or later". As long as the code is not linked against libmapi (which is GPL3 as Paul B. pointed out), the resulting binary can be released as LGPL. Code can be moved from main Evolution into libs and vice versa, which wouldn't be the case if the code of the executable is only licensed under the GPL. As soon as source is compiled into an executable which is also linked against libmapi, then the resulting work and its source has to be distributed under GPL3. The license of the Evolution source allows that, so you are fine. The shared libraries can remain under LGPL: GPL binaries can use LGPL libraries. > It would be really helpful if you can post a public/explicit mail with > permissions to do it, or code pointers - if you think you wrote a > piece of Evolution code & object. I haven't contributed much code and when I did, it was with copyright transfer. So no objections from my side. -- Bye, Patrick Ohly -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.estamos.de/ ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Evolution: Taking forward...
> * Move Evolution licensing to "LGPL v2 and LGPL v3" to let us re-use > the code more easily around the platform. I'm a little concerned with this plan in conjunction with the "getting rid of copyright assignment" plan. Once you start accepting a significant amount of code without copyright assignment, it will be difficult to the point of impossibility to change the license again. We can only assume that the FSF will, in the future, come out with a GPLv4 and that this license will have its own set of incompatibilities with the existing GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses (ditto for LGPL of course). So, if you change the license to "LGPLv2 or LGPLv3", then you'll be right back where you are now when LGPLv4 is released, AND you won't have the right copyright controls you do now that allow you to resolve the problem. IMO, if a software project is going to accept code without assignment then they really should be using the "LGPLvX or later" license structure, rather than providing a list of acceptable licenses. Either that, or resign yourself to FOREVER using ONLY the licenses you've listed, come what may--dangerous IMO! ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Evolution: Taking forward...
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 04:21 -0600, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > * The current licensing incompatibility issues of Evolution with > Samba4/libmapi (GPLv3). Evolution needs to link with libmapi/samba4 > for the new mapi based connector being developed for Exchange 2007. [...] > * Move Evolution licensing to "LGPL v2 and LGPL v3" to let us re-use > the code more easily around the platform. Did you mean LGPLv2 _or_ LGPLv3 here? Anyway, I am not familiar with libmapi, but it does indeed seem to be (what is commonly referred to as) a library that is licensed under the GPLv3. According to the FSF you can't release a project under the LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 if you want to use a library under GPLv3. You'll have to convert your LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 code to the GPLv3 [1]. So, if I'm reading your plan and the FSF GPL faq correctly, your plan wouldn't work (as far as libmapi is concerned). Am I reading your plan and the faq correctly? Regards, Paul Bolle [1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
[Evolution-hackers] Evolution: Taking forward...
Hello guys, We have had a set of problems that we are carrying around for some time like : * Copyright assignments, which is not the best way looking for the future of Evolution. It sucks and sort of limits contributions to Evolution and we wanted to drop it. * The current licensing incompatibility issues of Evolution with Samba4/libmapi (GPLv3). Evolution needs to link with libmapi/samba4 for the new mapi based connector being developed for Exchange 2007. So here is the plan : * Drop Evolution copyright assignments and make it really easy to contribute to Evolution * Move Evolution licensing to "LGPL v2 and LGPL v3" to let us re-use the code more easily around the platform. This also moves us closer to Thunderbird's MPL/LGPL model. We think this is good for Evolution and (of course) we continue to invest in Evolution. We are also working to ensure we have the rights to re-license all of the code. We will do the licensing/header changes as we audit the code ownership situation. It would be really helpful if you can post a public/explicit mail with permissions to do it, or code pointers - if you think you wrote a piece of Evolution code & object. We are really excited about this and we feel this would really help Evolution a lot. We need your support now for making this change and to take Evolution to great heights. Thanks for your contributions and support. -Srini. ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
