Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:18:51 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the version 2 or later is a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have contents like: This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the GPL. This is effectively what Diego was proposing with the 'GPL-2+' name. The LICENSE would then be: LICENSE=GPL-2 GPL-RENEW The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we don't lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding text). If desired it could even be used as LICENSE=|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) GPL-RENEW This isn't necessary - by creating the 'GPL-2+' license name, the only thing that's not fully correct as things stand is that packages that can be accepted with GPL-2 or later won't be accepted if the user has just GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSES. Over time this can be fixed, by replacing GPL-2 with GPL-2+ in the LICENSE variable for the relevant packages. The the meaning of each license name would be strictly: GPL-2 : Only licensed under GPL v2 GPL-3 : Only licensed under GPL v3 GPL-2+ : Licensed under GPL v2 or later Which gives everyone what they need; those wanting GPL-2 or later would have ACCEPT_LICENSES=GPL-2 GPL-3 GPL-2+. For me, the only other sane alternative would be to use license groups (assuming license groups can be specified in the LICENSE variable). I don't recall the status of license groups in portage. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:00:51 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Except that a GPL-RENEW tag would be transparent over newer GPL | releases too. But it won't be transparent for end users, who will have to accept weird non-licences in ACCEPT_LICENCES. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis is faster : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=61 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote: Hi, On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's alright to license it to any later version. Linux kernel for instance is licensed _only_ under GPLv2, but not any later version. I don't think this is a good solution, as in any case the package is licensed under GPL-2, so how about for the packages that only support GPL-2 we set: LICENSE=GPL-2 While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special case of multiple licensing) we do: LICENSE=GPL-2 GPL-3 I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the version 2 or later is a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have contents like: This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the GPL. The LICENSE would then be: LICENSE=GPL-2 GPL-RENEW The advantage being that the renew clause is version independent, we don't lose information, don't have to mutilate licenses (by adding text). If desired it could even be used as LICENSE=|| (GPL-2 GPL-3) GPL-RENEW Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpnjrniXQsr2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:05:48 + Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GPL-2: Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to consider it licensed under any later version. GPL-2+: Note: this license explicitly allows licensing under GNU General Public License version 2 or, at your option, any later version. Comments, ideas, proposals? From a purist point of view, I'd be inclined to go with this route. Pragmatically though, given the number of packages that do have the or later clause compared to the number that don't, it might be simpler to split them into GPL-2 (implying or later) and GPL-2-only. That's just a possible naming quibble though -- the idea I like. The suggestion to convert all GPL-2-or-later packages to || ( GPL-2 GPL-3 ) won't scale -- what happens when GPL-2.1 or GPL-3.1 appear? It's also an awful lot of work for something that is, when you get down to it, wrong. I agree. Diego's proposal works fine in practice; the 'might not' in the description for GPL-2 makes it clear that we don't guarantee to have updated all existing ebuilds to use the GPL-2+ name where appropriate. Doing it on an opportunity basis should be fine, so I don't think we need to worry about doing GPL-2-only. Saying GPL-2 when GPL-3 is also acceptable isn't critical in the near term; it won't cause people to install stuff with a license they don't accept. It won't really be needed until someone wants to have GPL-3 stuff but no GPL-2-only stuff - I think it's reasonable to avoid supporting that for a while, at least. If we start now, with all new commits having GPL-2 changed to GPL-2+ if appropriate, after a while we can change the GPL-2 description to be GPL-2 only and let GPL-3-only people (there's always one) bug about packages that are still unchanged when they hit them. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GPL-2: Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to consider it licensed under any later version. GPL-2+: Note: this license explicitly allows licensing under GNU General Public License version 2 or, at your option, any later version. Comments, ideas, proposals? From a purist point of view, I'd be inclined to go with this route. Pragmatically though, given the number of packages that do have the or later clause compared to the number that don't, it might be simpler to split them into GPL-2 (implying or later) and GPL-2-only. That's just a possible naming quibble though -- the idea I like. The suggestion to convert all GPL-2-or-later packages to || ( GPL-2 GPL-3 ) won't scale -- what happens when GPL-2.1 or GPL-3.1 appear? It's also an awful lot of work for something that is, when you get down to it, wrong. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
Yuri Vasilevski wrote: [...] But at the benefit of having less confusion for users about What the heck is a GPL-2+? for at last the same period of time. [...] So users will have to check what's the meaning of that + at the end of GPL-2+, so I think it'll create much more confusion than the work of updating packages with each new version of GPL. I think naming them GPL-2-only and GPL-2-or-later will fix this issue, especially if the note mentioned by Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò will be added. If someone is really interested in knowing more about licenses or GPL he is likely to already know the GPL 2 or later-thing, while those not interested in it anyway are likely not to ask :-) Maybe the question arising could be: Did the author say or later version or did he say or any later version as maybe (IANAL) it means only 2.* without that 'any' Something like that would make sense as I would want my software to be licensed under 2.* since they should be compatible but include fixes if a passage is unclear or creates problems in one or the other jurisdiction. Stefan Schweizer wrote: I see little benifit in having GPL-2+ but a lot of potential confusion and a lot of work for developers to check all pkges. What about creating a bug depending on some 11600 others for each package until it is fixed? (kidding) I agree on that, benefit would be rather small. IF a user really needs to know, wether it is 2.* or also a later version at his opinion it would for sure not be a problem to just look it up. On the other hand, changing the license should, if at all, be done rather at once than stepwise to avoid an inconsistend sceme, as I think this is what would create confusion... Ciao, Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's alright to license it to any later version. Linux kernel for instance is licensed _only_ under GPLv2, but not any later version. What I propose is to copy licenses/GPL-2 to license/GPL-2+ and adding the following notes at the start of the two files: GPL-2: Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to consider it licensed under any later version. GPL-2+: Note: this license explicitly allows licensing under GNU General Public License version 2 or, at your option, any later version. Comments, ideas, proposals? -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ... pgpfrL94DnOOh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
Hi, On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's alright to license it to any later version. Linux kernel for instance is licensed _only_ under GPLv2, but not any later version. I don't think this is a good solution, as in any case the package is licensed under GPL-2, so how about for the packages that only support GPL-2 we set: LICENSE=GPL-2 While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special case of multiple licensing) we do: LICENSE=GPL-2 GPL-3 when it becomes available? Best, Yuri. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
Yuri Vasilevski wrote: Hi, On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's alright to license it to any later version. Linux kernel for instance is licensed _only_ under GPLv2, but not any later version. I don't think this is a good solution, as in any case the package is licensed under GPL-2, so how about for the packages that only support GPL-2 we set: LICENSE=GPL-2 While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special case of multiple licensing) we do: LICENSE=GPL-2 GPL-3 If you meant: LICENSE= || ( GPL-2 GPL-3 ) then I agree ;) It would be under Either the GPL-2 OR a later version, not both, yes? -Alec Warner -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:06:32 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yuri Vasilevski wrote: Hi, On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's alright to license it to any later version. Linux kernel for instance is licensed _only_ under GPLv2, but not any later version. I don't think this is a good solution, as in any case the package is licensed under GPL-2, so how about for the packages that only support GPL-2 we set: LICENSE=GPL-2 While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special case of multiple licensing) we do: LICENSE=GPL-2 GPL-3 If you meant: LICENSE= || ( GPL-2 GPL-3 ) then I agree ;) It would be under Either the GPL-2 OR a later version, not both, yes? Right, thanks for catching that. Yuri. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote: While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special case of multiple licensing) we do: LICENSE=GPL-2 GPL-3 when it becomes available? There is one problem at least for this: to apply this method you'd have to change _all_ the ebuilds in the tree referring to GPL-2 or later when GPL-3 is published, while with GPL-2+ we can start gradually now. Also it would be more useful for users to know what can be licensed in 2+ and what requires 2 strictly. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ... pgprqWLAdLIsJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:31:04 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote: While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special case of multiple licensing) we do: LICENSE=GPL-2 GPL-3 when it becomes available? There is one problem at least for this: to apply this method you'd have to change _all_ the ebuilds in the tree referring to GPL-2 or later when GPL-3 is published, while with GPL-2+ we can start gradually now. Yes, this will require us to update ebuils once in like 5 (or 15?) years to catch with FSF. But at the benefit of having less confusion for users about What the heck is a GPL-2+? for at last the same period of time. GPL-2 is not a licence nor it is not a standard notation for that way of having multilicencing. So users will have to check what's the meaning of that + at the end of GPL-2+, so I think it'll create much more confusion than the work of updating packages with each new version of GPL. Also there could be a case that softer v3 is out, FSF will rethink and come up with something acceptable to Linus (and other people that refuse to migrate), as (as far as I can understand) GPL-3 will not be compatible with GPL-2. So there could be the case of having a package licenced under GPL-2, GPL-2.1 or later. (This is just an example, I actually have no idea whatever this will be the case of having a softer GPL-3.x.) Also it would be more useful for users to know what can be licensed in 2+ and what requires 2 strictly. This info can be easily and automatically extracted from LICENSE variable by applying some boolean logic ;-) Yuri. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 12:10:44AM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Friday 22 December 2006 23:43, Alec Warner wrote: Say I approve only GPL-3 packages (cause' I hate patents, and I dislike having a working system too!). This would encompass anything strictly GPL-3 and also anything GPL-2+ (which would then be under 3 at my option in this case). Not really, as GPL-2 does not disallow DRM (_if_ GPL-3 will disallow them), so if there's a software licensed under GPL-2+ that uses DRM, it couldn't be used under GPL-3 terms even at your option. I believe you're misunderstanding the DRM issue. There is nothing in the GPL-3 draft that forbids DRM, except insofar as the DRM prevents the user from exercising his/her GPL-granted rights, and it is not likely that the final GPL-3 will forbid it. In plain English, as long as you're able to modify, compile, and run the code, it's fine as far as the GPL is concerned. And Gentoo being a source-based distro, you can already know you're able to do all that. It's also possible that I'm misunderstanding your message, of course. If I am, would you please clarify? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
